sign in sign up
<<
Home , Canadian Americans, Defenders (Ireland), English diaspora, Loyalism, Orange (word), Orange Order

“Tie the Flags Together”:

Migration, Nativism, and the Order in the , 1840-1930.

by

Cory Wells

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON

December 2018

“Tie the Flags Together”: Migration, Nativism, and the in the United States, 1840-1930 Cory Wells

Throughout the nineteenth century, tens of thousands of Irish Protestants who migrated to the United States joined the Orange Order in their newly adopted country. Formed in in the

1790s, the Loyal Orange Institution existed to maintain Protestant hegemony in . It quickly spread throughout the anglophone Atlantic, especially to Britain and . As the number of

Irish Catholics immigrating to America steadily rose, reaching new heights during the Famine, so did the anti-immigrant rhetoric that culminated in the American nativist movement. While the history of the Orange Order has been given transnational treatment, to some extent, within the

British Empire, its role in the United States is understudied. Why did Irish Protestants in the United

States find maintaining their ties with anti-Catholic organizations, such as the Orange Order, and joining new ones, such as the America Protective Association, useful?

Using a large collection of documents created by American Orangemen and -women, this study examines the ways in which Irish Protestants in the United States, through the Loyal Orange

Institution, navigated the American political landscape while attempting to maintain their Irish

Protestant identity. Its primary argument is that through the Orange Order, Irish Protestants were able to connect with American nativist organizations to assert themselves as patriotic, white,

Anglo-Saxon Protestants, different from the growing waves of coming to

America’s shores after the mid-nineteenth century. Most of the Orange Order’s core tenets, based on its notions of “Protestant rights,” were either identical or approximate enough to values shared by many that they could be preserved with only moderate tempering. Irish Protestants

ii

migrated with tools for expressing anti-Catholic sentiments in hand and understood how to use these to assert themselves as patriotic Americans.

At the same time, Irish Protestants were able to maintain much of their pre-migration identity, and the Orange Order provided a venue to do this. The Order was transnational, and members viewed themselves as a global community of brothers and sisters. As a social organization, the Order also allowed men and women to forge new networks based on their shared

Orange identity. This, in turn, gave them access to migration networks and employment in their new homes, a sense of community, and even a place to find a spouse, while reinforcing an identity that was likewise predicated on the contrast between themselves and Irish Catholics at home and abroad.

iii

Acknowledgements

There are countless individuals without whom I could not have completed this work. I am indebted to the members of my committee, Kenyon Zimmer, Stephanie Cole, Christopher Morris, and Don MacRaild, for committing their time in reading and commenting on multiple drafts of each chapter and, most importantly, their insightful questions and suggestions, which helped me conceptualize this work. Any remaining errors are solely my own. Many other faculty members in the UTA history department have also greatly assisted me. Stanley Palmer, David Narrett, and

John Garrigus were among those to give me early encouragement, while Kim Breuer, Sam Haynes,

Gerald Saxon, Sarah Rose, and Andy Milson have given me help as they would their own students.

Department chairs Marvin Dulaney and Scott Palmer have been most supportive of my work as a student. The history department office staff members over the previous seven years have been an immense help in administrative matters, from processing reimbursements to opening my office when I have locked myself out. Elisabeth Cawthon has offered upbeat and enthusiastic encouragement through the entire process as both a professor and Dean of the College of Liberal

Arts. Assistant Dean Les Riding-In has also been instrumental in helping me acquire additional funding without which this project would not have come to fruition.

Several other institutions and their staff have been essential in making this work possible.

Brenda Davis, in UTA’s Office of Graduate Studies, has been generous in helping me procure funding that allowed me to conduct transatlantic research and supported me through the final stages of writing. The Southern Conference on British Studies also provided me with funds that made research in possible. The Historical of Pennsylvania provided me with a

Balch Research Fellowship, which allowed me to spend crucial time with much of the archival

iv

material used in this study. I would like to especially thank Christina Larocco, Sarah Heim, and the rest of the staff at the HSP for their help. Other vital sources were obtained at the Orange

Heritage Museum in Belfast, and I thank Jonathan Mattison for kindly making the Museum’s records available.

Over the course of my graduate career, I have made many friends—faculty and fellow students alike—who helped make what can be a lonely endeavor much more enjoyable. Kristen

Burton, Charles Travis, Gina Bennett, Robert Caldwell, Christopher Malmberg, Kathryne Beebe,

Joshua Hatton, Stephanie Sulik, Cristina Salinas, Lydia Towns, Amanda Guidotti, and John Harris have been especially forthcoming with friendship and help, although there are many others who have made my time at UTA a pleasure. Thanks also go to my wider academic support network and fellow #twitterstorians, especially Stephanie McKellop and Cynthia Lynn Lyerly, for their help and encouragement.

I am of course most grateful for the support of my family. Kaye Kauffman, Floyd and Kaye

Wells, and Mike and Lily Templin have all given financial support and encouragement without which I would not have been able to chase such impractical goals. My children, Luther and

Evangeline, and my wife and best friend, Jessica, have sacrificed the most, but have never faltered in their love and support for me. For that I am eternally grateful and dedicate this work to them.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Introduction ...... 1

1. “To be accepted the world over”: Migration, Class,

and Networks in the American Orange Order ...... 25

2. Ethnic Associationalism, Mutualism, and the American Orange Order ...... 57

3. The Two APAs: The American Orange Order and

Anti-Catholic Nativism in the Nineteenth Century ...... 91

4. “Readers and Friends”: Maintaining Community Through The Purple Bell ...... 128

5. Between American Nativism and :

Orangeism at the Turn of the Century ...... 164

Conclusion ...... 206

Bibliography ...... 216

vi

Introduction

“Tie the Flags Together”: Migration, Nativism, and the Orange Order in the United States, 1840-1930

When David Graham addressed the thirteenth triennial meeting of the Imperial Grand

Orange Council in 1903 as the Imperial Grand President, he invoked some of the defining historical events of Irish history. Referring to the Protestant organization’s chosen meeting venue of ,

Graham noted:

It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the history of this Green Isle, in the Capital of which we have the honor to assemble to confer together for the welfare of the Orange Order throughout the World, sufficient will be a passing mention of a few notable events, viz. :—the introduction, it is supposed, of by St. Patrick about the year 430; English and Scotch settlements made in Ulster by James I, in 1609; the Siege of ’ in 1688; the in 1690; unsuccessful Irish rebellions in 1798 and 1841. While sitting here in conference, let one fact be constantly in our minds, that we are within measurable distance of the noted places in the Orange History of the battles which are directly connected with the organization of our beloved Order, I refer to ’Derry, , Aughrim, and the Boyne.1

It is no surprise that, besides the introduction of Christianity, the events to which Graham referred were central to the sectarian conflict in Ireland so familiar to us today. More importantly to

Graham’s audience, the events represented Protestant victories over Catholics. Maintaining

Protestant Ascendency in Ireland and loyalty to the British Crown were (and still are) tenets central to Orangeism, and these events were formative moments in that struggle, central to Orange identity.2

1 Imperial Grand Orange Council of the World, Imperial Grand Orange Council, Dublin, 1903, Report of Proceedings (: 1903), 9 (hereafter cited as IGOC). 2 Tony Gray, The Orange Order (: The Bodley Head Ltd, 1972), 15, 34-35, 37-39.

1

What is most interesting about the address is the speaker himself: David Graham was an

American. Although born in Ireland in 1847, Graham immigrated to the United States at the age of five and was a naturalized citizen. He lived with his wife and children in , where he worked as a butcher and rented a house. His twenty-year-old son was also a butcher, suggesting— along with the fact that he was able to commit the time and money to travel to Dublin—that

Graham probably owned his own shop.3 But what interest did someone who had lived most of his life in the US, a citizen, have in the sectarian divisions of the Old World?

For Graham, there was no disconnect. He greeted his fellow Orangemen “not as a British subject to British subjects, but as a loyal citizen of the United States of America to loyal British subjects,” and asked that the international brotherhood may “intermingle our prayers: ‘God save the King’ and ‘God save the Union.’” He then asked to submit an “In Memoriam” to the recently deceased leaders of both nations, and William McKinley, before describing the shared virtues of the United States and the .

The , the flag of the greatest and most powerful nation of the earth, upon whose shores the sun never sets, whose army is invincible and whose navy is “Mistress of the Seas,” “The flag which braved a thousand years the battle and the breeze.” The Star-spangled Banner, representing that nation across the Atlantic which is “The land of the free, and the home of the brave,” granting protection for the brawny sons of those as are here represented, as well as over those of other nations of the earth seeking its shelter—a flag that has never been trailed in the dust. These two flags mean the fullest and perfect civil and religious freedom. Join them together, let the folds of the one intermingle with the folds of the other—this is not a wild dream or passing fancy—to the end, the perfect unity of the Anglo- Saxon ensuring the fullest liberty, progress and prosperity, then “Tie the flags together, boys,” and all nations of the earth, even if combined, would bow in humble submission and respect.4

3 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 4 IGOC, Report of Proceedings, 9.

2

David Graham probably spoke for most Orangemen and -women in the US when he described the historical and ideological connections between America and the UK, and his address serves as an example of how they reconciled seemingly competing principles of republicanism and monarchy. For Graham, both nations were agents of “liberty, progress, and prosperity,” and, most importantly, of Anglo-Saxon values. Graham’s attempt to “tie the flags together” was not a novel idea among American Orangemen and -women, as the overlapping of patriotism and by this time had an almost century-long historical context. This study examines the ways in which

Irish Protestants in the United States, through the Loyal Orange Institution, navigated the

American political landscape while attempting to maintain their Irish Protestant identity. Its primary argument is that through the Orange Order, Irish Protestants were able to connect with

American nativist organizations to assert themselves as patriotic, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, different from the growing waves of Irish Catholics coming to America’s shores after the mid- nineteenth century. At the same time, the Loyal Orange Institution provided Irish Protestants and their immediate descendants with a structure by which they maintained a transnational identity, an identity that was likewise predicated on the contrast between themselves and Irish Catholics at home and abroad.

Throughout the nineteenth century, thousands of Irish Protestants who migrated to the

United States and Canada joined the Orange Order in their newly adopted countries. As the number of Irish Catholic immigrants steadily rose, reaching new heights during the Famine, so did the anti- immigrant rhetoric that culminated in the nativist movements in both nations. While the history of the Orange Order has been given transnational treatment, to some extent, within the , its role in the United States is typically downplayed as an anomaly whose diminutive size justifies

3

scholarly neglect.5 But one might wonder why it existed at all. Why did Irish Protestants in the

United States find maintaining their ties with anti-Catholic organizations, such as the Orange

Order, and joining new ones, such as the America Protective Association, useful? Was this a natural consequence of their alignment, both politically and economically, with the dominant

(Protestant) culture on both sides of the Atlantic? Or did they feel the need to assert their loyalty and patriotism (depending on the locale) because of their proximity to Irish Catholics everywhere they went?

Orangemen and -women had two primary, yet seemingly contradictory, reasons for joining the Loyal Orange Institution of the United States. First, those who had migrated from Ulster,

Canada, and other parts of the British Atlantic were able to keep their connections to the Old

World—connections that may have even facilitated their move. They were able to maintain much of their pre-migration identity, and the Orange Order provided a venue to do this. The Order was transnational, and members viewed themselves as a global community of brothers and sisters. As a social organization, the Order also allowed men and women to forge new networks based on their shared Orange identity. This, in turn, gave them access to migration networks and employment in their new homes, a sense of community, and even a place to find a spouse. Second, most of the Orange Order’s core tenets were either identical or approximate enough to values shared by many Americans that they could be preserved with only moderate tempering.

Orangemen and -women quickly realized that the United States, like Britain (which governed

Ireland), was a de facto Protestant nation. Until the late nineteenth century, American nativism was directed almost exclusively against Catholics. Irish Protestants migrated with tools for expressing anti-Catholic sentiments in hand and understood how to use these to assert themselves

5 Cecil J. Houston and William J. Smyth, “Transferred Loyalties: Orangeism in the United States and ,” American Review of Canadian Studies 14, no. 2 (1984): 193-211.

4

as patriotic Americans. As in Britain, Orangemen and -women predicated loyalty to the nation on the sustained protection of Protestant hegemony. Therefore, fealty to the (Protestant) British crown was supplanted by loyalty to American democratic institutions.

The Irish Origins and Transnational Reach of the Orange Order

The Orange Order’s roots can be found in the agrarian conflict and nascent nationalism of eighteenth-century Ireland. Beginning in the 1690s, the English Parliament passed a series of Penal

Laws aimed at depriving Catholics in Ireland of rights, including holding political office, serving in the army and civil service, and practicing law. Irish children were required to be educated at

Protestant-run schools. Because power was still tied almost exclusively to land in Ireland, restrictions were also placed on property ownership. Catholics could not bequeath whole estates to a single heir, unless that heir had converted to the established Protestant . This meant that land was usually broken up into equal parts among heirs until all members of the family were left with only enough land to subsist. Many of the “” (Catholic Anglo-Irish of

Norman descent) had fled to Continental by this time, forfeiting estates to Protestants.6

However, many Irish Protestants remained and developed a brand of nationalism that spoke to both sects. , himself a Protestant, formed the United Irishmen in 1791, espousing rights for Catholics and Protestants alike. Unfortunately, Tone’s alliance with revolutionary France and the subsequent radicalization of the movement alienated many Protestants from the United

Irishmen while attracting more Catholics.7

Because the were not always enforced by governmental agencies, vigilante peasant formed to fill the power vacuum and insure the implementation of Protestant

6 Mike Cronin, A (London: Palgrave, 2001), 80-82. 7 Gray, Orange Order, 50.

5

Ascendency, in which Protestants (especially Anglicans) enjoyed social, political, and economic domination of Ireland. One of the most notable of the Protestant groups was the Peep O’ Day Boys, named for the early hours of the morning during which they conducted their intimidation raids. In response, the Catholic arose.8 Matters came to a head when a pitched battle between

Protestants and Catholics occurred at Dan Winter’s Inn in , , on

September 21, 1795. That night, Winter and his fellow Protestants formed a secret society, first known as the Orange Boys. The movement caught on quickly, and as Orange Lodges appeared throughout the north of Ireland, Catholics were further driven into the arms of the United

Irishmen.9 As more of the was drawn away from Ireland in response to the French

Revolution, the government in Ireland relied more upon local yeomanry volunteer groups for which Orange lodges facilitated recruitment. This established a symbiotic relationship between the

Order and the yeomanry that would become a feature of the order throughout the Atlantic World.

By 1796 the number of lodges had increased to ninety, with a likely membership of several thousand. By March of the next year, Grand Lodges—that is, organizations made up of representatives from primary lodges, with some oversight responsibilities—had been established in Belfast and Dublin, where the regional Grand Masters met to establish the first national Grand

Lodge with Thomas Verner, an Irish member of parliament (MP), as Grand Master. The Orange

Order was, at this point, the largest political organization in Ireland.10

Within only a few short years of the Order’s formation, Orangemen had migrated across the English-speaking world, and they frequently clashed with Catholics not only in Ireland, but also in Great Britain and British , throughout the nineteenth century. Most of the

8 Hereward Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain, 1795-1836 (: Ryerson Press, 1966), 1,4, 8- 9, 21, 29-30. 9 Gray, Orange Order, 50-51. 10 Senior, Orangeism in Britain and Ireland, 50-51, 89-92, 116.

6

Orange Order’s displays of anti-Catholicism were public, and they found a receptive audience in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century anglophone Atlantic, including the United States.

US historiography has long recognized anti-Catholic nativism as a widespread phenomenon that expanded beyond paranoid fringe elements. While the Know Nothing Party (officially the Native

American Party) of the 1850s is the most famous example because of its political significance in the run-up to the Civil War and the formation of the Republican Party, nativism continued to thrive well into the twentieth century (and, indeed, into the twenty-first), shifting its focus from religion to race.11 Even though the Orange Order was by far the largest anti-Catholic organization in

Canada, historians of both Canada and the Order there have downplayed this aspect of the group, arguing that sociability, , and political mobilization among Protestants in were its chief goals.12

Nativism directed toward the Catholic Irish in the nineteenth century was a transatlantic phenomenon that was not unique to the United States, but one that stemmed from the interconnected history of the anglophone world, and indeed, of northern Europe in general.13

11 For the antebellum period, see Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism (Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1963); for later, see John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1963). 12 Houston and Smyth, “Transferred Loyalties”; Allison O’Mahern Malcom, “Anti-Catholicism and the Rise of Protestant Nationhood in North America, 1830-1871” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at , 2011). 13 Susan M. Griffin, Anti-Catholicism and Nineteenth-Century Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); D. A. J. MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order: Female Activism, and Empire in the British World, 1850-1940 (Oxford: , 2016); Donald M. MacRaild, “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery’: Militant Protestant Preachers in the Nineteenth-Century Anglo- World,” Journal of Religious History 39, no. 2 (June 2015): 224–43; E. W. McFarland, Protestants First: Orangeism in Nineteenth Century (: Edinburgh University Press, 1990); Edward Robert Norman, Anti-Catholicism in Victorian (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1968); Denis G. Paz, Popular Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Victorian England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); T. Verhoeven, Transatlantic Anti-Catholicism: France and the United States in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Palgrave, 2010); Yvonne Maria Werner and Jonas Harvard, eds., European Anti-Catholicism in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2013); John Wolffe, The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain, 1829-1860 (New York: Clarendon Press, 1991); John Wolffe,

7

Religious prejudice was a significant hurdle Irish Catholic migrants encountered when acculturating to their new homes, as it was frequently conflated with race and nationality. This religious dimension, however, has taken a back seat in recent historiography that focuses heavily on European immigrants within the unique contours of America’s racial history.14 More recently, historians have argued that anti-Catholic nativism in , especially in the province that would become modern Ontario, was merely a representation of almost universally accepted attitudes toward Catholics.15

Scott W. See was one of the earliest voices in the historiography of Orangeism in Canada to insist that the word “nativism” is indeed applicable.16 He argues that Canadian and US historians should be more willing to look to each other for frameworks that might provide an understanding for larger transnational themes.17 One such theme that See explores is collective violence between

Irish Catholic immigrants and nativists in Upper Canada and the northeastern United States, and he argues, “The links between emerging nativism, Irish migration patterns, and a global contest

“North Atlantic Anti-Catholicism in the Nineteenth Century: A Comparative Overview,” in Werner and Harvard, eds., European Anti-Catholicism, 25–41; Wolffe, “A Transatlantic Perspective: Protestantism and National Identities in Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain and the United States,” in Protestantism and National Identity : Britain and Ireland, c.1650-c.1850, ed. Tony Claydon and Ian McBride (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 291-309. 14 David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. (London: Verso, 1991); Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 2008); Thomas Guglielmo, White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998). 15 Malcom, “Anti-Catholicism,” 20. 16 Scott W. See, Riots in : Orange Nativism and Social Violence in the 1840s (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 11. 17 Scott W. See, “Nineteenth-Century Collective Violence: Toward a North American Context,” Labour/Le Travail 39 (Spring, 1997): 13-38.

8

between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were firmly forged in mid-nineteenth-century

North America.”18

While Allison Malcom agrees that anti-Catholic nativism in Canada and the US were two sides of the same coin, she emphasizes the nationalist aspect of these movements. The mid- nineteenth century was an especially important period of nation-building for both the US and

Canada, and Malcom argues that the nativist movements in each country represented manifestations of the white Protestant voice in national conversations about what it meant to be

Canadian or American. Obviously, the dominant voices in this conversation favored Irish

Protestants over Irish Catholics. In addition, Protestants in both locales viewed history since the

Reformation as a steady march toward greater religious and political liberty, with William of

Orange’s 1690 victory over James II in Ireland as a key event.19 As in Canada, the Orange relationship with multiple nativist organizations in the US points to a larger popular anti-Catholic sentiment prevalent in North America in the nineteenth century. Before 1870, the American

Orange Order was not nationally organized, but only a loose scattering of lodges that occasionally popped into public consciousness, usually because of parades that turned violent. Until late in the century, the Order had no press of its own, and few of the documents it produced have survived to reside in archives. To gain any sort of understanding of Orangemen and -women in the United

States before the twentieth century, we must rely on the impressions of the press and occasional court reporters. Orange and Green clashes were not an epidemic, but they did occur with some regularity in and New York, most famously in the New York of 1870

18 Scott W. See, “Variations on a Borderlands Theme: Nativism and Collective Violence in Northeastern North America in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” in and the Maritime Provinces: Connections and Comparisons, ed. Stephen J. Hornsby and John G. Reid (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005), 125. 19 Malcom, “Anti-Catholicism,” 202, 207.

9

and 1871. Violence more frequently followed Orange parades in Canada throughout the second half of the nineteenth century.20

A Parading Tradition

The parading tradition had a long history in Europe, and Ireland was no exception. But the emergence of political parading in Ireland was focused on a specific Irish political moment—the events of 1688-90—and the popularity of the tradition among Irish Protestants survives today. As early as October of 1690, only days after the city was taken by William III, , the

Cork Corporation declared the first of that month to be an annual day of thanksgiving. Across

Ireland that year, William’s birthday, November 4, was combined with another popular anti-

Catholic celebration, Guy Fawkes Day. In of 1701, the Dublin Corporation unveiled a statue of the king and established the tradition of parading government officials and nobility around the figure. The custom of parading with banners depicting the Battle of the Boyne began in 1734, when Robert Baillie, the designer of the ’ tapestry depicting the conflict, marched through the streets of Dublin with his work, accompanied by forty veterans of the battle wearing orange and blue cockades. By the battle’s fiftieth anniversary, commemorative groups such as the

Boyne Society were the primary keepers of the Boyne parades, although other groups like the

Ancient Loyal Society of Enniskilleners and the Aughrim Society of Dublin kept other important

20 See, Riots in New Brunswick; T.W. Acheson, “The Irish Community in Saint John, 1815-1850,” in New Ireland Remembered: Historical Essays on the Irish in New Brunswick, ed. P.M. Toner (Fredericton, NB: New Ireland Press, 1988), 27-54; Gregory S. Kealey, “The Orange Order in Toronto: Religious Riot and the Working Class,” in Essays in Canadian Working Class History, ed. Peter Warrian and Gregory S. Kealey (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976), 13-34; Brian Clarke, “Religious Riot as Pastime: Orange Young Britons, Parades and Public Life in Victorian Toronto,” in The Orange Order in Canada, ed. David A. Wilson (Portland, OR: Press, 2007), 109-127; Ian Radforth, “Collective Rights, Liberal Discourse, and Public Order: The Clash over Catholic Processions in Mid-Victorian Toronto,” Canadian Historical Review 95, no. 4 (December 2014): 511-544.

10

dates alive in the public mind. A commemoration of the in 1788 even included a reenactment of the closing of the city gates.21

While parades throughout the eighteenth century celebrated events that benefited only

Protestant narratives of Irish history, they were not as overtly political as they would later become.

It was only the appearance of the Orange Order in the that changed the tone of loyal parades in Ireland. In 1796, only a year after the formation of the Order, thousands came out in support of parades in the Ulster towns of Belfast, , and .22 Historian James Kelly argues it was at this point that a marked shift occurred in Irish parades. The tradition was now in the hands of ideological conservatives, who emphasized the promotion of active .

Until this point, accidents with fireworks had been the primary cause of death or injury resulting from parades, but by the beginning of the nineteenth century, violence had become associated with parades in Ireland.23

Senior leaders of the Order, who tended to come from middle and landed classes, frequently sought to prevent processions and their attendant violence to make the Order more respectable.24 Parades continued, however, even after the passage of the of

1832 banned them. In 1835, the British Parliament investigated the Order over concerns that the

21 James Kelly, “The Emergence of Political Parading, 1660-1800,” in The Irish Parading Tradition: Following the Drum, ed. T.G. Fraser (Houndmills: MacMillan Press, 2000), 9-26. For the commemoration of William’s birthday and his landing in England, see James Richard Redmond McConnel, “The 1688 Landing of William of Orange at Torbay: Numerical Dates and Temporal Understanding in Early Modern England,” The Journal of Modern History 84, no. 3 (2012): 539–71. 22 Dublin Evening Post, July 19, 1796; Hereward Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain, 1795-1836 (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1966), 37-39; Dominic Bryan, Orange Parades: The Politics of Ritual, Tradition and Control (London: Pluto Press, 2000), 31. 23 Kelly, “The Emergence of Political Parading,” 9-26. 24 Bryan, Orange Parades, 38; Senior, Orangeism, 37-39. For tension between the “rough” and “respectable” elements within the Order, see Donald M. MacRaild, “The Orange Atlantic,” in The Irish in the Atlantic World, ed. David T. Gleeson (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2012), 307– 26.

11

organization was infiltrating the army and plotting to place its honorary Grand Master, the Duke of , on the throne. This negative attention, compounded by the Processions Act, drove much of the gentry away from the Order, while concurrent industrialization in Belfast allowed its working-class membership to swell. Expansion of railways in Ulster also facilitated large gatherings of Orangemen, and stations around Belfast were often the scenes of violence.25

Clashes intensified in the late 1840s, with a major riot between Orangemen and Ribbonmen (Irish

Catholics) at Dolly’s Brae, , in July 1849. As many as thirty Catholics were killed, and many of their homes were destroyed.26 In response, Parliament again passed another Party

Processions Act in 1850, the previous one having lapsed in 1844. Enforcement was lax, as many policemen were Orangemen themselves and allowed parades to go on in Protestant neighborhoods.

Violence occurred in Belfast in 1852 and 1855, and in in 1853.27 Belfast in 1857 was especially terrible, with rioting lasting ten days.28 In 1864, the town was torn apart again for almost two weeks when Protestant ship builders and Catholic rail workers rioted against each other in response to news that a statue of Daniel O’Connell, a standard bearer for and disunion, would soon appear in Dublin.29 When Catholic and Protestant Irish migrated throughout the Atlantic World, they brought a tradition of asserting their religious identity in public demonstrations.30

25 Bryan, Orange Parades, 38-39. 26 “Fatal Affray at Dolly’s Brae,” Dublin Evening Post, July 14, 1849. 27 Bryan, Orange Parades, 39-40. 28 The Ulsterman, July 27, 1857. 29 Dublin Evening Mail, August 23, 1864; Bryan, Orange Parades, 41. 30 Violence also occurred around Orange parades in Scotland and England throughout the nineteenth century. For England, see Donald M. MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting: The Orange Order and Irish Migrants in , C. 1850-1920 (: Liverpool University Press, 2005), Chapter 5. For Scotland, McFarland, Protestants First, 51, 62-63.

12

Early Orange Parades in the United States

It is unclear when Irish Protestants began organizing around Orange banners in the United

States, but the first known American Orange parade made it into the historical record because of its attendant violence. On July 12, 1824, a dozen or so Orangemen (the exact number is unclear) began causing a ruckus in Greenwich Village, New York, firing guns and playing fifes at between five and six in the morning. James Murney, a weaver, and his fellow Catholic neighbors were drawn to the noise and quite alarmed to discover it was a parade of Orangemen. Natives of Ireland,

Murney and his neighbors had firsthand experience with the Order, and claimed they were terrorized and driven out of their homeland by Orangemen. The Orangemen apparently caroused throughout the day, and by evening were making their return trip through the area, likely having drank most of the day. Amid cries of “bring out the croppies” and “come out papists,” Murney and a co-worker named Cassidy alerted the police but were not taken seriously due to the officers’ ignorance of the Order’s significance and its anti-Catholic taunts. According to most witnesses, when Murney and Cassidy approached the Orangemen to ask the meaning of their orange and purple flags—symbols whose meanings they well knew—Orangeman John Moore struck Murney with the pole which his flag adorned. A fight ensued, with more Catholics coming to Murney and

Cassidy’s defense. Several men sustained injuries from Protestant brickbats and clubs, but there were no deaths. Moore and three of his fellow Orangemen were found guilty of assault and battery.31

The resulting trial was prosecuted in part by Thomas Addis Emmet. Emmet was an exiled

United Irishman and brother of , the radical Irish nationalist who had been executed

31 Jacob D. Wheeler, Reports of Criminal Law Cases Decided at the City-Hall of the City of New York: With Notes and References (New York: Gould and Banks, 1825), 83-100.

13

for his leadership of Emmet’s Insurrection against British rule in 1803.32 Thomas Emmet’s fellow prosecutor, identified only as Mr. Sampson, attempted to put the Orange Order itself on trial as a vile offense to American principles. “On that day the village of Greenwich was alarmed by a new kind of celebration, unknown in this country. In this land of freedom we have not been accustomed heretofore, to witness such a celebration. If mistaken zeal and religious liberty are allowed to prevail here, in what country upon the face of the earth may it not prevail: where can mankind find safety?” Sampson then attempted to read some Irish history to the court, arguing, “When the subject matter of the charge arises from history, then history is the best evidence.” The defense objected, and Sampson was stopped from placing the affray in its historical context, which, judging by Sampson’s attempt to do so, was hardly understood by the American court. Indeed, it was the court’s attitude that there was no place in the United States for such sectarian conflict. The magistrate instructed the jury, “We know nothing about Orangemen, Catholics, United Irishmen, etc. They are all protected, and entitled to protection, by the laws of this country…It is for you, gentlemen, to put down these illegal associations—to put a speedy and effectual stop to these violations of the peace.” The jury returned an hour and a half later with a guilty verdict.33

A few points can be gathered from this early example of Orange display in the US. First, the historical context of the tensions between Irish Catholics and Protestants was not apparent to

Americans. The police were reluctant to act before actual violence had broken out, not understanding Catholic fears of violence by the Orangemen. Once the matter went to court, the prosecutor was denied the opportunity to apprise the jury of the history of the Order’s actions in

Ireland—a history that only went back about a quarter of a century, officially. Sampson’s intent was obviously to portray Irish Catholics as victims of Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland, which was

32 Gordon, Orange Riots, 22. 33 Wheeler, Reports, 83-100.

14

in part enforced by paramilitary organizations like the Orange Order. While the American-born audience for the riot and its ensuing court case were ignorant of its cultural and political implications, the participants were well-aware of the meaning and historical context of the orange and purple flags, the orange lilies, and the music of the fife.34 The Orangemen had brought all of these symbols with them from Ireland.

Irish Protestant Migration to America

The paucity of studies on both post-colonial Irish Protestant migration and the Orange

Order in America are two sides of the same coin, as most scholarly work on Irish Protestant migrants has instead focused on the “Scotch-Irish.”35 Although these earlier Protestant migrants generally referred to themselves as “Irish” when pressed to make national or ethnic identifications, their American descendants preferred the use of “Scotch-Irish,” a term that had occasionally been used by outside observers since the colonial era. In the late nineteenth century, descendants of Irish

Protestants accepted and promoted this label as a way of distinguishing themselves, in an age of growing Irish nationalism and of nativist hostility, from much-maligned Irish Catholics, and to distance themselves from Irish-Catholic nationalism. The first histories of the Scotch-Irish emphasized their early presence in the colonies and their patriotism during the American

Revolution, establishing them as a distinct whose members were colonists, not

34 Orangemen, wearing Orange ribbons and tricolor cockades, also clashed with Irish Catholics as they marched to Irish anti-Catholic songs during a Twelfth parade in Philadelphia in 1831. See Francis W. Hoeber, “Drama in the Courtroom, Theater in the Streets: Philadelphia’s Irish Riot of 1831,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 125, no. 3 (July 2001): 191–232. 35 For notable examples, among many more popular titles, see James G. Leyburn, The Scotch-Irish: A Social History (1962; repr. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989); Patrick Griffin, The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster Scots, America’s Scots Irish, and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

15

immigrants. This public image left the impression that after the Revolution, Irish Protestants simply stopped migrating to the United States. However, Maldwyn Jones estimated that as many as 100,000 mostly-Protestant Irish came to the US between 1783 and 1812.36

Citing sociological studies from the late 1980s and early 1990s, Donald Akenson notes that

56 percent of those who identify as Irish in the modern US are Protestant. Akenson gives a few possible reasons for this. Although Catholics from Ireland arrived in larger absolute numbers,

Protestants began arriving earlier, meaning that they have a greater number of generations among their American descendants. Because colonial America was predominantly Protestant, those

Catholics who did arrive during this period were likely to convert, as the presence of the Catholic

Church was not strong in the colonies. This trend of Protestant dominance in migration likely continued into the 1830s, with Catholics outpacing Protestants only in the mid-nineteenth century at the onset of the Famine. It is likely that even at the height of Irish emigration, from 1840 to

1880, Protestants migrated in numbers proportional to their numerical representation in Ireland.37

Rankin Sherling has more recently broken new ground in the study of nineteenth-century Irish

Protestant migration. Because the Presbyterian Church kept such thorough records, Sherling was able to use ministers to the United States as a small but nearly complete dataset to draw conclusions about Protestant migration to America to from Ireland, as ministers would only go where potential congregants lived, making them a good barometer of Irish Presbyterian migration. Sherling’s findings confirm some of what we already suspect about Irish Protestant migration, but also hint

36 Maldwyn A. Jones, “Ulster Emigration, 1783-1815,” in Essays in Scotch-Irish History, ed. E. R. R. Green (Belfast: Ulster Historical Foundation, 2005), 48, 63. Russell Kazal has demonstrated a similar process for Philadelphia Germans in his book Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 37 Donald Harman Akenson, The : A Primer (Toronto: P.D. Meany Co., 1996), 52, 219, 223, 259-60; Robert E. Kennedy, Jr., The Irish: Emigration, Marriage, and Fertility (Berkeley: University of Press, 1973), 111-110.

16

at previously unknown parameters. While we know Irish Presbyterian migration in the eighteenth century was generally to the northern Chesapeake and Philadelphia area, Sherling confirms that clerical migration was almost exclusively to the Delmarva (a portmanteau of “Delaware,”

“Maryland,” and “Virginia”) Peninsula. Many of these migrants soon made their way north to

Philadelphia, the nearest major city and later a center of Irish Protestant activity. This gravitation toward cities only intensified in the nineteenth century, and Pennsylvania remained the most frequented destination, with as the second, followed by the Midwest (especially

Ohio). Additionally, Sherling found significant movement between the US and Canada, in both directions, and that the peak of Irish Protestant migration coincided with peak Catholic migration during the .38

In recent decades, scholarship has turned toward the role of networks in migration, moving beyond simple “push/pull” factors. Typically, charter groups pave the way for successive waves of migrants, who in turn follow paths that have been carved out by relatives, neighbors, or fellow countrymen from one distinct location to another, creating structures Charles Tilly called

“transplanted networks.”39 Jose Moya has found such processes at work among Spanish migrants to Buenos Aires, by combining micro- and macro-focused methodologies to identify multiple global structural trends. Moya argues that these large trends did not necessarily push emigration but allowed for individuals to make the choice to migrate. Moya illustrates that emigration tended to (with a few admitted exceptions, including Ireland) occur when times were good, not in response to demographic crises. Members of different Spanish communities brought previously learned skills and cultures with them to Buenos Aires. These skills lent themselves to diverse types of

38 Rankin Sherling, The Invisible Irish: Finding Protestants in the Nineteenth-Century Migrations to America (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016). 39 Charles Tilly, “Transplanted Networks,” in Immigration Reconsidered, ed. Virginia Yans-McLaughlin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991): 79-95.

17

employment, with particular groups settling in specific environs, although not in segregated neighborhoods. For example, migrants from Val de San Lorenzo had experience in as grain merchants who utilized pack animals, which often led them to become itinerant milkmen in Buenos

Aires. Because Valense settlers, by contrast, were late arrivals in the larger period of immigration, they tended to gravitate to the rapidly expanding northern periphery of the city.40 Like Spanish migrants to , Orangemen and -women migrating from Ulster and Canada to the United

States often followed paths that allowed them to use their skills from home to make a living in their new home.

Because were tied into the Atlantic economy, production centers in the

American northeast served as somewhat natural destinations once they chose to move. The British

Empire facilitated the wave of globalization that occurred in the Atlantic World between 1850 and

1914, and a vast network of people and goods that included Britain, , and North America emerged, with the United States benefiting from its economic and cultural ties to Britain. Gary

McGee and Andrew Thompson argue that culture was very important in this process: as millions of anglophone migrants dispersed through this system in what might be described as a trade or labor diaspora, they naturally gravitated toward locales where the culture was familiar to them and where trade and business networks were already established. It was the existence of such networks that led many Protestant Irish migrants to their chosen destinations.41 Once they arrived, their previous involvement with the Loyal Orange Institution provided a connection to fellow migrants.

40 Jose C. Moya, Cousins and Strangers: Spanish Immigrants in Buenos Aires, 1850-1930 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). 41 Gary B. Magee and Andrew S. Thompson, Empire and Globalisation: Networks of People, Goods and Capital in the British World, c.1850–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). For a useful typology of , see Robin Cohen, Global Diasporas: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2008).

18

Ethnic Associationalism in North America

When placed within the context of associationalism, the Loyal Orange Institution of the

USA looked and behaved much like other ethnic mutual aid societies, although such a label is broad and covers a wide range of organizations. Jose Moya has examined migrant voluntary associations throughout the world, with a focus on the Americas, and suggests a typology that provides a useful framework. Moya argues such associations are typically based on “secondary” ties; these are somewhere between primary ties, like immediate kinship, and tertiary ties, such as those to formal institutions or the state. The Orange Order fits this model, as it never enjoyed official connections to the American state. While the Order strove to incorporate members’ families into its structure and reinforce ideals of the family, such relations were not requisite for membership. Moya also addresses historical debates over whether these organizations are a product of the pre- or post-migratory experience, and ultimately concludes they are in fact a result of the process of migration itself, which explains the similarities in voluntary associations across multiple ethnicities and geographies. Moya notes, “This process tends to intensify and sharpen collective identities based on national, ethnic or quasi-ethnic constructs.” In addition, the differences between each migrant group and other newcomers may have provided an impetus.

Perhaps equally as important, migrant associations were most likely to form when migrants’ needs were not met. The height of mutualism in North America, for example, occurred during a period when traditional institutions like kinship groups and churches were becoming less dominant in migrants’ lives, but before institutions such as the state and businesses stepped in to provide for

19

needs like healthcare or leisure activities, and it was in this context that the Orange Order in

America saw its highest membership.42

In Moya’s typology, mutual aid societies are the most numerous and important voluntary associations, and as many as one-third of American men may have belonged to at least one such group in 1910. Mutual aid societies served several purposes, often appearing as patriotic associations, social clubs, or limited-issue advocacy groups, but their most important function was financial. These societies operated like insurance companies, pooling risk among their members and providing for them in times of need, such as during sickness, and paying for members’ burials after death. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, healthcare costs rose as medicine became more professionalized. Some associations helped members mitigate these costs by keeping a doctor on retainer, creating a system that predated health maintenance organizations.43 Many migrants also joined religious associations, with ethnic or national identity being the primary motivation. For some migrant groups, such as Poles and the Irish, Catholicism famously accounted for a major component of their emerging national identities. The Irish have a rich history of forming their own associations in America and were in fact some of the first migrants to do so. In 1737, a group of Irish-born businessmen and professionals formed the

Charitable Irish Society in (CISB). The original membership was primarily, if not exclusively, Protestant, and the organization banned Catholics from holding office until 1760. By the time the Orange Order emerged as a venue for Irish Protestant expression, these older Irish

42 Jose Moya, “Immigrants and Associations,” in Benjamin Bryce and Alexander Freund, eds., Entangling Migration History: Borderlands and Transnationalism in the United States and Canada, Contested Boundaries (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2015), 834-840; David T. Beito, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 1-3. 43 Moya, “Immigrants and Associations,” 842-846; Jason Kaufman, For the Common Good? American Civic Life and the Golden Age of Fraternity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 21.

20

associations were dominated by Catholics.44 As Moya argues, “the relevance of the Church in the associational life of the immigrants echoed its significance as a marker of ethnicity, and particularly as an embodiment of ethno-nationalist redemption, rather than the religious difference between the new arrivals and their hosts.”45 It was at this very intersection of mutualism and ethno- religious identity that the Orange Order found its home in America. Because its ability to provide financial support varied across time and space, it was the ethno-religious aspect that would be most prominent.

Historian David Beito has focused on how mutual aid societies (both migrant and native) provided what other social structures could not, arguing that encroachment of the welfare state led to their decline by making them unnecessary. Because the Orange Order was stocked primarily with working-class men and women, its members often relied in times of need upon its support.

By the time the Order flourished in the post-bellum era, it was able to build upon frameworks developed by other associations over the previous century. Americans have a rich fraternal tradition, and scholars who write on the topic frequently note Tocqueville’s assessment that

Americans had a unique penchant for joining voluntary associations.46 The earliest and perhaps most important organization was the Freemasons, which made its way from Britain to Boston as early as 1733. Other societies followed, and most of these appealed early on to elites, though skilled artisans dominated membership rolls by the end of the eighteenth century. By the early

1800s, friendly societies catering to wage earners and skilled workers began to appear. While the

44 Michael F. Funchion, Irish American Voluntary Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983), 69-73. 45 Moya, “Immigrants and Associations,” 842-846; Kaufman, Common Good, 25. 46 Beito, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, 5; Theda Skocpol, “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy,” Social Science History 21, no. 4 (1997): 457; Moya, “Immigrants and Associations,” 836; Kaufman, Common Good, 3.

21

mostly middle-class Masons tended to discreetly and informally collect funds for distribution only when need called, these newer workingmen’s societies explicitly promoted insurance schemes for the benefit of their members. Beito argues that an increasing demand for funeral insurance played a key role in the diffusion of friendly societies. Friendly societies’ established role in providing insurance meant that it was poised to take advantage of an increase in demand after the Civil War, when financial disasters among commercial insurance companies left a bad taste in the public’s mouth. Friendly societies also offered less conspicuous benefits. A member might learn about social opportunities, such as jobs or places to live, while at the same time building up informal credit. Using the example of an Oddfellow, Beito points out that as the individual rose in degrees within his lodge, he widened his “network of trust,” building social capital.47

Jason Kaufman, in focusing on voluntary associationalism among both migrants and natives in the United States, emphasizes similar points to Moya. Examining the primary goals of such groups, Kaufman finds, “the huge wave of organization building between the Civil War and

World War I was motivated by the desire for exclusive social outlets that would allow individuals of different genders, races, ethnicities, and birthplaces to socialize in private, self-segregated groups.” He attributes this phenomenon to two factors. First, as Beito before him argued, both natives and a rising tide of migrants desired some level of segregation from each other. Second, and more importantly, Kaufman credits a process he terms “competitive volunteerism.” The explosion in sheer numbers of organizations during this period meant each had to compete harder for members, resources, and power. As a result, groups tended to recruit those who already shared their members’ backgrounds and outlooks, which in turn strengthened perceived similarities

47 Beito, Mutual Aid, 5-6, 11-12.

22

among members, further homogenizing the group while excluding those who did not fit.48 It is not surprising that we find one the greatest bursts of Orange Order activity in the wake of the deadly riots in New York in 1870 and 1871, as Orangemen rallied to strengthen their numbers and their cause, which centered around Protestant patriotism and opposition to Catholic power.

Immigrant Nativists

This study follows the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA and its members from the

1840s, as nativism intensified in response to increasing immigration from Ireland, to the early

1930s, which saw a sharp decline in both anti-Catholic sentiment and the importance of fraternal organizations and mutual aid societies. Chapter 1 establishes that, as in the Orange Order elsewhere outside of Ireland, membership was predominantly working-class and foreign-born. It suggests that migration networks and the Order were strongly linked. Once Orangemen and - women migrated, the Order served as an ethno-religious society that allowed its members to maintain an Orange Diaspora and forge an ethnic identity, as shown in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 demonstrates that, throughout the nineteenth century, Orangemen conversely used the Order as an organizational apparatus to infiltrate and co-opt nativist organizations, which were larger and more politically active. Contemporary observers argued that Orangemen did this clandestinely to obscure their foreign birth as they sought to restrict the power of fellow (Catholic) immigrants.

Chapter 4 examines how, like other transnational communities, the Orange Order in America used the press to stay connected and disseminate information and values shared by readers. The Purple

Bell, which began publication in 1899, served as the official organ of the Order and provided a venue for sharing the concerns and goals of Orangewomen and -men in the US and abroad. Finally,

48 Kaufman, Common Good, 3-8; Beito, Mutual Aid, 17.

23

Chapter 5 follows the fortunes and failures of the Order though the early twentieth century, which included collaboration with quasi-fascist individuals and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. At the same time, the Order suffered a split at the national level that left irreparable damage at a time the movement could ill afford it.

Two contradictory themes run through every chapter and section of this study, forming the basis of the questions I hope to answer. Members of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who can generally be described as Irish Protestant immigrants, maintained the Order as a quasi-ethnic religious association that was part of a diasporic community. At the same time, the Order’s members fought to present themselves as— and truly believed themselves to be—loyal patriotic Americans. Their view of what it meant to be an American was heavily shaped by their shared memory and experiences of ethnic politics in

Ireland. How they navigated this contradiction can tell us much about both the post-migration experience of Irish Protestants, as well as the United States in this period. Orangemen and -women were simultaneously both typical immigrants and opponents of immigration. They created and relied upon transnational networks for migration and to thrive in their new homes, although these networks were shaped and constrained by larger structures. But as white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, members of the Orange Order possessed few, if any, of the undesirable qualities nativists perceived among other immigrants, so long as they were careful in how they expressed their transnational ties. Recognizing that Protestants enjoyed higher status than Catholics in America, Orangemen and -women drew connections between their own ultra-Protestantism and American nationalism, positioning themselves as immigrants who wielded authority in matters of national belonging.

24

Chapter 1

“To be accepted the world over”: Migration, Class, and Networks in the American Orange Order

It is an understatement to say there is a rich body of literature concerning the Irish Diaspora, but until recently, the story told was overwhelmingly one of Irish Catholics. Because of particular historical contingencies, Catholicism has entered into the popular and historical imagination as an important component of “Irishness.”1 Of course, Catholics have always been the majority in

Ireland as a whole, and (barely) a majority in Ulster, even at the peak of Protestant power there.

Catholics made up a significant portion of emigrants from the earliest waves of migration, and after the Famine they clearly outnumbered Protestants in overall emigration. Given this context, it is understandable why Catholics have been given more consideration in studies of migration from

Ireland. Additionally, Protestant migrants are difficult to study simply because they cannot easily be teased out of the sources to which historians typically turn first, such as census records and immigration documents. In the United States, religion was not recorded upon entry, making it nearly impossible to identify Protestants as distinct from Catholic migrants. While , places of origin, known associates, and even sometimes occupations can offer clues, these are insufficient on their own.

Research in the field, therefore, is difficult. Archives are scanty; cooperation with historians has, from both sides, been patchy. One method of working around these issues is to use the Loyal Orange Institution as an access point through which to identify and examine Irish

Protestant migrants and their progeny. Because Protestantism was absolutely required for membership in the Orange Order, we can be certain that anyone joining met that requirement. In

1 See Donald Harman Akenson, The Irish Diaspora: A Primer (Toronto: P.D. Meany Co., 1996), 254.

25

addition, because the Order’s purpose was rooted in Irish ethnic politics, it is a reasonable place to search for Irish Protestants and their descendants. Indeed, as in Orange movements throughout the anglophone world, the Orange Order in North America was primarily populated by first-generation

Irish migrants and their immediate descendants, and the first-generation aspect was especially pronounced in lodges in the United States. By locating individual members of these lodges in census and immigration records, we can see strong indications of familial migration and personal networks that likely influenced individual decisions to migrate. Beyond the ethnic composition of lodges, we may also use their records to learn other things about their members. They reveal, for example, that besides being primarily Irish in makeup, the membership of US lodges was typically working-class, matching what we already know about the Order in other places it was strong, such as Ireland, Britain, and Canada. Not all Irish Protestant migrants joined the Orange Order in

America, of course; indeed, most did not. But, the Order’s membership mirrored the larger Irish

Protestant community elsewhere, at least in socio-economic terms, making it a useful place to start.

Conversely, examining a few small slices of the American Order’s membership demonstrates that it was primarily an association maintained by migrants.

Migration and the Orange Order in the United States

Migration out of Ireland was so high after the Famine that it became a permanent feature of life that affected both Catholics and Protestants. To ease the process for fellow Orangemen and

-women, the Order developed a loosely uniform membership system based upon transfer certificates that extended to all lodges throughout the world. When an Orangeman moved to a new location where a lodge existed, he simply asked the new lodge to write to his old one asking for a certificate, for which the lodge usually asked a small fee, with the “amount being forwarded to the old country for [the] same.” This was the case with John Linton, whose new lodge requested his

26

certificate from Ireland in November of 1899 and, because of the distance it had to travel, did not receive it until June of the following year. If the member was in good standing, the sending lodge was usually happy to oblige, as long as its secretary was diligent. If the receiving lodge got a response indicating the applicant’s dues were in arrears, its members sometimes agreed to pay the amount and hold the member to the debt after his admission.2 The new lodge would duly admit the applicant at the first meeting following the receipt of the certificate. While meeting minutes do not tell if migrants chose to move to locations because there was already an Orange presence there

(and possibly an acquaintance or relative), we can be certain that transfer certificates helped ease migrants into their new homes and provided them with an almost instant social circle.

Transfer certificates can also tell us about migration among Orangemen. While no published historical study focuses exclusively on Orangeism in America, Cecil Houston and

William Smyth have compared the Order in the US and Canada. Based on Orange officer directories from 1900, they concluded that the American Order was primarily urban, with

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and the industrial towns around Boston serving as the most active hubs.3

While the contours of individual lodges varied in relation to local contingencies, it is reasonable to assume lodges from these areas are approximate enough representatives of Orange Lodges throughout the northeast. From 1883 to 1974, 106 Orangemen submitted transfer certificates to

Lily of the Valley Loyal Orange Lodge (LOL) no. 167, located in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, a northwestern suburb of Philadelphia. Meeting minutes for Lily of the Valley Lodge are unknown,

2 Donald M. MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting: The Orange Order and Irish Migrants in Northern England, C. 1850-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 77; Purple Star Loyal Orange Lodge no. 40, Meeting minutes, November 12, 1899, June 12, 1900, August 25, 1900, Collection D0462 M98-14, box 4, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Hereafter cited as HSP, Purple Star minutes). 3 Cecil J. Houston and William J. Smyth, “Transferred Loyalties: Orangeism in the United States and Ontario,” American Review of Canadian Studies 14, no. 2 (August 1, 1984), 203-204.

27

but the Order was not nationally organized until 1870. The Lodge’s number, 167, and the presence of records dating back to 1883 suggest the Lodge was formed about that time. Philadelphia and its suburbs were also historically hotbeds of anti-Catholic activity and Irish Protestant migration and would remain so into the 1920s.4 Of the 106 transfer certificates, forty-three of their owners transferred directly from Ireland. Another fifty-six transferred from other Pennsylvania lodges; in these instances it is difficult to assess whether or not they were migrants, as the transferring lodge could have been the first stop after a removal from Ireland, or simply a native-born Orangeman’s first lodge.5 Those who transferred from local lodges likely knew some members of the new one from previous interactions between lodges, as local lodges frequently collaborated on events, and individual members sometimes visited other lodges in their area.6

Much of the practical business of the Order revolved around members’ efforts to remain connected with each other. Orangemen from across the globe formed a worldwide body, the

Imperial Grand Orange Council, by the late 1860s, and their ability to migrate or simply visit each other was a primary concern.7 The inside front cover of the Reports of the Proceedings for both the 1903 and 1906 meetings advertised “Orange Traveling Certificates,” which could be obtained by primary or district lodges. The notice promised, “These Certificates are handsomely got up in book form with cloth cover, convenient to carry…for the special purpose of encouraging

4 Sherling, Invisible Irish; Trevor Parkhill, “Philadelphia Here I Come: A Study of the Letters of Ulster Immigrants in Pennsylvania, 1750-1875,” in Ulster and North America: Transatlantic Perspectives on the Scotch-Irish (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2011); Francis W. Hoeber, “Drama in the Courtroom, Theater in the Streets: Philadelphia’s Irish Riot of 1831,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 125, no. 3 (July 2001): 191–232; Philip Jenkins, Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997). 5 Loyal Orange Institution of the United States of America, Records, 1883-1974, Collection MSS 103, HSP. 6 Discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of this study. 7 MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, Chapter 8, 286-320. A more detailed discussion of the work of the Imperial Grand Orange Council is also found in Chapter 2 of this study.

28

intervisitation between bona fide members of different Grand, Provincial, and State Grand

Lodges.” The certificates took the place of the receipt of dues an Orangeman would previously have presented to demonstrate good standing in his local lodge.8 Traveling Certificates were especially important to those visiting the United States from Ireland, though there was some confusion over the qualifications for membership in the American Order. At the 1903 IGOC meeting, an Irish member inquired if only American citizens could join. George T. Lemmon,

Supreme Grand Master of the USA, explained those with current certificates would be accepted without question of , which was only requisite for those who had no previous membership.9

As mentioned above, Orangemen did not always migrate with Traveling Certificates in hand, in which case they would be requested from the sending lodge. Attempting to perfect this system proved to be a perennial source of consternation for Imperial officers. To mitigate this the

IGOC, meeting in New York in 1900, created an “International Bureau of Information,” under the office of the Imperial Grand Secretary, James Rice. In his 1903 address to the convention, Rice called for a streamlining of the process based on increased uniformity of Orange procedures and admonished primary lodge secretaries for their tardiness in responding to inquiries. This criticism was especially directed at Irish secretaries, who received the most requests because of high rates of emigration. Rice added, “The brethren in the United States have had much to contend with in the difficulty surrounding the securing of certificates for members from the old country who would like to join in the United States but find unexpected barriers.” Rice’s desire for reform also

8 Loyal Orange Association of the World, Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report of Proceedings of the Triennial Session of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of the Loyal Orange Association of the World (Glasgow, Scotland: Published at the Office of Imperial Grand Secretary, 1903); ibid., (1906). 9 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report (1903), 27, 58.

29

included the adoption of a universal password and ritual so “an Orangeman should be a brother

Orangeman the world over,” a potential procedural shift for which the body had created a committee in New York in 1900.10 The issue was raised again in 1903, and by 1906 Rice was thoroughly frustrated with his fellow Imperial officers, who, like himself, traveled a great distance to be part of the Council. He admonished them, “Such conduct I simply describe as childish. What is the use of coming three thousand miles to do business and then going back three thousand miles to repudiate what you have done? I like straightforward conduct on the part of a man, much more so on the part of a Brother Orangeman.”11 Rice was clearly upset that his efforts to strengthen the international Orange community had been thwarted by the perceived laziness of those whom he considered part of a special community.

Transfer certificates were so important within the Orange Order because, outside of

Ireland, it was maintained by near-constant migration. In both English and American lodges, the origins of the members varied by location, but virtually all were majority foreign-born well into the twentieth century. This steady stream of new blood from abroad was vital to sustaining the movement, which frequently struggled to retain membership in both countries, making it a truly transnational organization.12 The case studies discussed below hint at larger trends among

American Orangemen that concur with what we know about the Order elsewhere. Membership applications to Lily of the Valley Lodge survive from as far back as the first decade of the twentieth century to well into the 1970s. Thankfully for the historian, these applications collected a great deal of demographic information, such as place of birth, occupation, residence, denomination, and, sometimes, previous Orange Lodge affiliations. A look at the records of Maiden City Loyal Orange

10 Ibid, 12, 16, 37. 11 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report (1906), 16. 12 For England, see MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, 4.

30

Lodge no. 40 in Clinton, Massachusetts, is also revealing, especially with regards to origin and occupation. Like the greater Philadelphia area, the mill towns north and west of Boston were sites of notable Orange activity and Irish migration.13 In 1885, Clinton’s mills included Lancaster Mills, which covered over four acres of land (including one room of almost an acre devoted to weaving), and Bigelow Carpet Company, whose founders were responsible for the incorporation of the town in 1850. Together, the various mills in Clinton employed 1,466 of the town’s 8,945 inhabitants.

These mills were known for producing a wide range of woven material (including cotton gingham and wire cloth for netting and fencing) and employed large numbers of Catholic and Protestant

Irish migrants.14

While American Orange Lodges fielded members of multiple nationalities, the majority of members in both Philadelphia and Clinton were born in Ireland. From 1908 to 1974, 225 of 378 applicants to Lily of the Valley (virtually all of whom were accepted) were of Irish birth, representing 60 percent of the total. Another thirty (8 percent) were born in in Scotland, and just twelve (3 percent) in England, for a total of 71 percent of foreign birth. In the period before 1930, the numbers lean even more heavily toward foreign birth, at 78 percent of the applicants. While ninety-five of the Irish-born applicants listed only “Ireland” as their place of birth, we can reasonably assume from the rest that these came almost exclusively from the northern province of

Ulster. , with thirty applicants, led the way, with Antrim (including Belfast) contributing twenty-six, and Derry (twenty-two) and (twenty) close behind. Only five listed County Down as their place of origin.15

13 Houston and Smyth, “Transferred Loyalties,” 204. 14 Elias Nason, A Gazetteer of the State of Massachusetts: with Numerous Illustrations (Boston: B.B. Russell, 1890), 242; Andrew Elmer Ford, History of the Origin of the Town of Clinton, Massachusetts, 1653-1865 (Clinton, MA: W.J. Coulter, Courant Office, 1896), 222-225. 15 Membership applications, Lily of the Valley Loyal Orange Lodge No. 167, folders 2, 4-9, 12-18, MSS 103, HSP.

31

Place of Birth of Lily of the Valley Applicants, 1908-1930

Ireland Scotland England USA Canada

32

Perhaps the most notable trend is that of occupation. Of the applicants up to and including

1930 (225 individuals), seventy-eight were gardeners, representing 35 percent of the total. The second most common occupation was chauffeur or driver, constituting 10 percent of the group.

There were also twelve carpenters, eighteen machinists, and various other skilled occupations totaling about 30 percent. Twenty-one percent fall into the category of semi-skilled (mostly chauffeurs), and 37 percent unskilled. Only twenty-four of the applicants, or just over 10 percent, were white-collar.16

Occupational Class: Lily of the Valley Lodge Applicants, 1908-1930

White Collar- 10% Skilled Labor- 32% Semi-skilled Labor- 21% Unskilled Labor- 37%

Both the Irish origin and the occupational breakdown of the members of Maiden City were more skewed than those of Lily of the Valley. Of the fifty-seven members who appeared in Maiden

City’s meeting minutes, forty (70 percent) were born in Ireland. Surprisingly, given its relative

16 Membership applications, Lily of the Valley, HSP. Based on the labor classification system provided by Stephan Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880- 1970 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 290-292.

33

proximity, Canada only provided five members. The US also accounted for only five members, and England just one, although this member bore the distinctly Scottish name of James Campbell.

Thirty of the members’ birthplaces can be narrowed down to a specific place within Ireland, and of those for whom this information is available, twenty-one (70 percent) were born in County

Down. Even more striking, fifteen (26 percent of members found from 1897-1915) of the Down natives were from the village of or nearby. Although this data is limited, it strongly suggests a process of migration from specific villages based on information sent back to Ulster from friends and family who had already made the journey and secured employment.17

This evidence is strengthened when we look at the employment of the Maiden City members. Most of those whose occupations are recorded in census records were employed in some way or another by the mills of Clinton, most of them at Lancaster Mills. Of the fifty-four members for whom we have occupational data, thirty-seven (61 percent) either held occupations in the textile industry or were explicitly listed as employees of the mills in other capacities, such as watchman, driver, or machinist. The single most common occupation among the Orangemen of

Maiden City, with eleven among their number, was weaver. Loom fixers, teamsters, firemen (those who stoked the fires of steam-driven machinery), machinists, and dryers also filled the ranks of the lodge. Of the members for whom we have occupational data, six (11 percent) were in white- collar positions, which is a greater rate than that found among the applicants to Lily of the Valley.

17 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com; Purple Star minutes, HSP. Bruce S. Elliott examines the phenomenon of network migration among Protestants from Tipperary to Canada in Irish Migrants in the : A New Approach (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004), Chapter 5.

34

Still, the remaining 89 percent of these men worked in various blue-collar positions, suggesting

Maiden City Lodge was predominantly working-class.18

Occupational Class: Maiden City Lodge, 1897-1906

White collar- 17.5% Unskilled- 17.5% Semi- skilled 40% Skilled- 25%

These findings are generally in line with what we know about the Order throughout the

Atlantic world. Orangemen were predominantly working-class, with modest variation based on local circumstances.19 Ireland’s Orangemen were overwhelmingly working-class at the turn of the century, and Eric Kaufmann found that 81 percent of Belfast lodge masters were manual laborers.

Half of those were skilled, and 18 percent were white-collar. In Glasgow, the center of Scottish

Orangeism, the city provided for greater social mobility and in 1911, 27 percent of officers there were petit bourgeois.20 By contrast, in the north of England, where that country’s movement enjoyed its greatest strength, half of Orangemen were unskilled, with many employed in the

18 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com; Transfer certificates, Lily of the Valley Loyal Orange Lodge, HSP; “U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 19 For an example of this within western Scotland, see Elaine McFarland, Protestants First: Orangeism in Nineteenth Century Scotland (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), 78-85. 20 Eric P. Kaufmann, “The Orange Order in Scotland since 1860: A Social Analysis,” in New Perspectives on the Irish in Scotland, ed. M. J. Mitchell (Edinburgh, UK: Birlinn, 2009), 173.

35

mining and production of coke.21 Because Orangeism was so popular in parts of Canada, especially

Toronto, Orangemen came from a wider range of social classes and tended to fare best there.

Overall, a quarter of Toronto Orangemen were unskilled workers, while white-collar workers accounted for one third, and 42 percent were either skilled or semi-skilled.22 The Order’s political power in Canada also exceeded that of its counterparts elsewhere, providing individual Orangemen with greater opportunities. Well into the 1950s, Orangemen filled the mayor’s seat in Toronto, where the Order wielded substantial influence over city politics, while four served as Prime

Minister of Canada.23 In fact, the Loyal Orange Institution occasionally allowed working men to rub shoulders and even collaborate on equal footing with those of higher social status in ways they might not have otherwise. At the 1903 Imperial Grand Orange Council, President David Graham, a butcher from New York, collaborated with Belfast MP William Johnston to devise an “Orange

Propagation Fund.” Graham’s opening speech from the meeting also received praise from the Earl of Erne, who deemed it “the finest address he had ever heard on such an occasion,” and a banquet connected to the meeting included everyone from “the Duke of down to the ordinary working man.” 24 As researchers of the Order elsewhere have found, the Orange Order was not a likely venue for building class solidarity, despite being primarily working-class. Protestantism and a concern for uniquely Irish ethnic politics were more important.25

21 MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, 43, 109, 123. 22 Cecil J. Houston and William J. Smyth, The Canada Wore: A Historical Geography of the Orange Order in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), 105. 23 William J. Smyth, Toronto, the Belfast of Canada: The Orange Order and the Shaping of Municipal Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 35, 62, 91. 24 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report (1903), 17, 63, 65. 25 Kaufmann, “The Orange Order in Scotland,” 173; MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, 26, 109, 203-206.

36

Detailed data on the denominations of American Orangemen is notably scarce, but the surviving applications to the Lily of the Valley Lodge do record this, and the results differ from the religious makeup of lodges in Ireland and Canada. Of 230 applicants in the period up to and including 1930 whose religion is recorded, 60 percent were Presbyterian.26 This is notably out of line with what we know about Orangemen across the Atlantic. Kaufmann found that in 1901 half of Belfast lodge officers and 63 percent of Tyrone district officers were members of the Church of

Ireland (Episcopalians), the denomination which has historically and disproportionately dominated the Order.27 This Anglican domination extended to Canada as well, where Presbyterians fell behind both Anglicans and Methodists in lodge membership.28 But of Lily of the Valley’s applicants, only

22 percent listed their denomination as Episcopal. Irish-born Methodists, more accurately reflecting the population of Ulster, constituted 6 percent of members, with an equal proportion being American-born.29 This proportion of Methodists differed from that of Canada, where they could be found in higher numbers within Orange Lodges.30 Unfortunately, the data needed to make meaningful comparisons to other lodges is unavailable, and the prominence of Presbyterians in

Lily of the Valley could be explained by multiple factors. Of the Presbyterians who recorded their county of birth, a quarter originated in heavily-Presbyterian Antrim, and twelve more came from

Protestant-majority Down.31 It is possible that the particular migration streams and networks that

26 Membership applications, Lily of the Valley, HSP. 27 David A. Roberts, “The Orange Order in Ireland: A Religious Institution?” The British Journal of Sociology 22, no. 3 (1971): 269–82. Presbyterians accounted for 39% of the Protestant population of Belfast and fifty percent in County Tyrone. Kaufmann, “The Orange Order in Scotland,” 173. 28 Smyth, Toronto, 14, 17; Houston and Smyth, Canada Wore, 94, 105. 29 Membership applications, Lily of the Valley, HSP; Roberts, “The Orange Order: A Religious Institution?” 278. 30 Kaufmann, “The Orange Order in Scotland,” 173; Houston and Smyth, The Sash Canada Wore, 94, 105. 31 Membership applications, Lily of the Valley, HSP; Collins, Brenda, “The Origins of Irish Immigration to Scotland in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” in T.M. Devine (ed.), Irish Immigrants and Scottish Society in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Edinburgh: Donald, 1991), 1-18.

37

brought migrants from Ulster to the northern suburbs of Philadelphia favored those from regions where Presbyterianism was stronger.

Regardless of denomination, American Orangemen strongly encouraged their recently- arrived brethren to become citizens, and petitions for naturalization of the members of Maiden

City also suggest the existence of migration networks among Ulstermen who left for America.

These petitions could only be filed once an individual had been in the country for five years and had made a declaration of intent three or more years prior. While I have located only fourteen such records, a few trends emerge regarding the origins of both the petitioners and the individuals who played key roles in their networks. Several of these men originated from a relatively small geographic area, implying they had some sort of connection before migrating. As more individuals used these channels, the network itself migrated and became stronger in the process.32 As with the larger group for whom we can identify a place of birth, this smaller sample is also overwhelmingly represented by members born in County Down. The county of birth is unknown for three individuals, but like the lodge members as a whole, a majority of the men for whom we do have records (six) hailed from the small village of Rathfriland, with three others from the villages of

Kilkeel and Saintfield, and the town of , all of which are approximately within a seventeen-mile radius. The remaining two originated in Tyrone and the border county of Cavan, about forty and seventy miles away, respectively.33

These petitions also give us some clues as to Orangemen’s direct personal connections with each other. The application required two US citizens to sign and attest to the applicant’s suitability for citizenship. For most of the men in our sample group, the signers were fellow Irishmen,

32 Tilly, “Transplanted Networks,” 84. 33 “US Naturalization Records, 1840-1957,” digital images at Ancestry.com; Purple Star no. 40 meeting minutes, HSP.

38

although the connection to a particular place in Ireland was not quite as apparent. Only four of the signers can reliably be traced to County Down, although three were from Rathfriland. While most of these signers appear only once, a few signed for multiple petitioners. Henry Thompson, from

Rathfriland, signed for four other men, while Benjamin Dixon, of Cavan, signed for three, as did

Joseph Crothers. Crothers’ birthplace in Ireland is unknown, but it is likely he is related to two other Crothers, Samuel and James, who themselves signed for petitioners and whose names appear frequently in Maiden City’s records. These Crothers likely came from , Down.34

Not surprisingly, many of the signers for these Orangemen were Orangemen themselves.

Just under half (eight out of twenty) of the signers can be found in the membership records of

Maiden City, although it is probable that others were also fellow lodge members. The Orange

Lodge must have provided a place for Protestant Irishmen to socialize within a familiar institution from the homeland and to make connections that would benefit them in their new homes. Although it is unclear whether these men joined Orange Lodges because they already knew men who were members or if they got to know these other men after they joined, the lodge undoubtedly provided a place for men to strengthen such connections. Clearly, these Irishmen frequently looked to their

Orange brethren when they needed someone to vouch for their personal character.35

For some Orangemen, the fictive kinship between brethren became literal, as they might be related by marriage. Of the fifteen Maiden City Orangemen from Rathfriland, eight married verifiably Irish-born spouses, and many of these marriages exhibited Rathfriland ties. George

Stewart, who would later serve as Supreme Grand Master, married Marguerite Dougan, whose brother Robert was a Maiden City member. Although Stewart and Dougan were both from the

Rathfriland area, they married after settling in Clinton. Sisters Bessie and Mary Ann Hamilton also

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.

39

married men from their hometown of Rathfriland—John D. Johnston and John Wright, respectively—after migrating, making their husbands brothers-in-law of their Orange “brother”

Matthew Hamilton. Esther Hutton’s marriage to John Martin probably connected him through her maternal grandparents to brothers (in both senses) David and William Gilmore, as well as to father and son James and Robert Crothers. Familial connections extended the Rathfriland contingent, too, as when Rathfriland-born George McCullough wed Elizabeth Mayberry, whose family came from Westport, Mayo, and provided Maiden City with at least two members: Elizabeth’s brothers

George and Charles.36

Orange and occupational ties are difficult to untangle because many Orangemen worked alongside their fellow lodge members. While these individuals could draw from among their friends, neighbors, family members, and lodge brethren to find witnesses for naturalization applications, they usually had to look no further than the shop floor where they worked. But again, it is unclear which came first: the personal connection or the job. It does seem clear that many of these migrants worked together because they came from proximate locales throughout Ireland, where they all received similar information from the same friends and relatives about the availability of jobs in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other spots throughout the US and Canada.

Once they arrived, they certainly would have sought out friends and relatives, or at least fellow countrymen, who had already made the journey. This search could have led them in many directions, of course, but two of these paths would have ended (or converged) at the workplace and the Orange Lodge. Partly because of this phenomenon, the typical Orangeman in Philadelphia

36 Ibid; “1911 Ireland Census,” digital images at Ancestry.com; “Massachusetts, Marriage Records, 1840- 1915,” digital images at Ancestry.com; “Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1787- 2004,” digital images at Ancestry.com; “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com.

40

was likely to be a gardener from Tyrone, while in Clinton, Massachusetts, he was apt to be a weaver from County Down.

By looking at the examples of Lily of the Valley Lodge and Maiden City Lodge, we see definite signs of network migration. In both cases, Irish Protestants migrated to areas with long- established routes forged by their ancestors and countrymen. These streams of migration ebbed and flowed in response to many historical contingencies but saw an increase in the late nineteenth century, leading to pronounced occupational trends that intersected with migration streams. The textile industry had long been a major feature of the Ulster economy, first with wool, and later linen, which was a cottage industry.37 Of course, many Irish Catholics worked in the textile mills of the northeast (most famously Lowell, Massachusetts, just a few miles away), and many

Protestant migrants were also likely compelled to seek these same jobs, especially when guided by friends and family who had already migrated.

Canadian Migrants and the Orange Order in the United States

An Irish-born majority was not always to be found in American Orange Lodges, but the organization nevertheless typically drew its membership from immigrants—including many from

Canada. Historians Bruno Ramirez and Randy William Widdis have shown that some generalizations can be made about Anglo-Canadian migrants to the United States, a group that subsumes those of Irish Protestant background within state records. The larger context of Anglo-

Canadian migration can therefore help us make sense of many of the occupational and migratory characteristics found among Canadian-born American Orangemen.

37 Leyburn, The Scotch-Irish, 159; Kerby A. Miller, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 40.

41

The late nineteenth century was a dynamic time for transatlantic migration, and Canada received the third-largest number of European migrants between 1870 and 1914, after the United

States and Argentina.38 Canadian migrants did not typically congregate in enclaves or along occupational lines, and instead dispersed widely and held a variety of jobs, both skilled and unskilled.39 But by 1900, were the third-largest nationality in the U.S., after the Irish and Germans, with 2.5 million having arrived since 1860. Widdis argues that even after

Confederation (1867), a clear Anglo- did not fully coalesce. Defining oneself against others, such as Americans or French-Canadians, was more important, as was associational identity. Being an Orangeman, , or an Oddfellow was likely more important than being

Canadian. The British element of the imagined Canadian culture was assumed to be dominant, with indigenous and French-Canadians being peripheral. This assumption, along with the Loyalist origins of early Anglo-Canadians, played into the loyalist bent that made it possible for the Orange

Order to thrive in Canada. British migration to Canada accelerated throughout the nineteenth century, and most of these migrants came from the peripheries of the : Scotland,

Ireland, and Northern England. By 1842, the Irish were the largest immigrant group in Canada, but this included both Protestants and Catholics. During the Famine, about 30 percent of those who left Ireland landed in Canada, with Protestants generally gravitating toward rural areas. But many

British migrants were craft workers, attracted by semi-urbanized, diverse labor markets.40 Many

38 Walter T. K. Nugent, Crossings: The Great Transatlantic Migrations, 1870-1914 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995). 39 Bruno Ramirez, Crossing the 49th Parallel: Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900-1930 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 97, 100. For earlier research on migration from Canada to the United States, see Alan Brooks, “Out-Migration from the Maritime Provinces, 1860-1900: Some Preliminary Considerations,” Acadiensis 5, no. 2 (Spring 1976), 26-56; and Patricia A. Thornton, “The Problem of Out-Migration from Atlantic Canada, 1871-1921: A New Look,” Acadiensis 15, no. 1 (October 10, 1985), 3-34. 40 Randy William Widdis, With Scarcely a Ripple: Anglo-Canadian Migration into the United States and Western Canada, 1880-1920 (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998), xx, 3, 6, 9, 12, 62.

42

of the Canadian Orangemen who migrated to America and formed Orange Lodges there were the children of the British and Irish migrants who came to Canada a generation before, and all of them were shaped by the sense of an anti-Catholic identity.

It was during the decades surrounding the turn of the twentieth century that the US-

Canadian border began to truly exist as an obstacle to migrants, but Canadians still enjoyed an easier time crossing than most. Most complaints over the United States’ northern border came from labor unions and tended to be more concerned with European migrants using the border as an easier entry point into the US. The American Federationist charted the results of a 1922 US military study showing Canadians to be the seventh most intelligent nationality among draftees, where they were placed below the English, Dutch, , and Swedes, but above the Irish, Turks, and Poles. But the article’s author gave them no space in his actual analysis arguing for restriction based on mental and physical difficulties, and prejudice against Anglo-Canadians did not seem to be widespread.41 When Canadians were mentioned at all in immigration debates, it was typically within the context of competition for precious jobs. Even after the tightening of the border,

Canadians were privileged. They were exempted from a head tax upon entry, and the required documentation generated made it easier for them to acquire naturalization in the future than most other groups. Only about one in ninety Canadians was denied entry, and they were exempt altogether from the quota restrictions of 1921 and 1924, even though Canadian migration had increased during the First World War while migration from Europe had slowed.42

Geographic constraints typically shaped migration from Canada to America. Scholars of the US borderlands have divided the vast international border between the US and Canada into

41 Oliver Hoyem, “Immigration and America’s Safety,” American Federationist 29, 11 (1922): 820-821, cited in Ramirez, 53. 42 Ramirez, Crossing the 49th Parallel, 45, 51.

43

several trans-border geo-economic regions, including the “Greater New England” region and Great

Lakes region. The concept of the New England Borderlands region is based upon a core and periphery model, which posits Boston as the core metropole which exploited its peripheral hinterlands of northern New England and of Canada for both labor and resources.

Established even before 1812, this exchange of people and goods, especially lumber and coal, persisted even after Confederation and the push for westward expansion on both sides of the border. Characterized by its economy of “wood, wind, and sail,” it includes New England in the

US, and extends all the way to Labrador on the northeast coast of Canada. Shipbuilding, lumbering, and fishing were the most important industries, and these geo-economic ties fostered cultural affinities, too, as the Atlantic Provinces were somewhat isolated from the rest of English Canada, being separated by French-dominated .43 The New England states were also the most common destination for migrants leaving the Maritimes for the US. Between 1871 and 1901, close to 250,000 individuals (10.5 percent of the Maritime population) made this journey, with half choosing Massachusetts as their destination.44 Boston was the primary destination for Maritime migrants, and there they enjoyed socio-economic rankings comparable to native-born Americans.

Only 4 percent were unskilled laborers, according to a 1903 study, and Canadian men dominated the carpentry and shipbuilding trades.45 Women, who outnumbered male migrants, mostly worked as domestic servants, but there were also many nurses, saleswomen, and office workers.46

43 Graeme Wynn, “New England’s Outpost in the Nineteenth Century,” in Stephen Hornsby, Victor Konrad, and James Herlan, eds., The Northeastern Borderlands: Four Centuries of Interaction (Orono and Fredericton: Canadian-American Center, University of Maine and Acadiensis Press, 1989), 64-90; Thornton, “The Problem of Out-Migration from Atlantic Canada.” 44 Alan Brooks, “The Exodus: Migration from the Maritime Provinces to Boston During the Second Half of the 19th Century.” (Ph.D. diss., University of New Brunswick, 1978), 72-75. 45 Frederick A. Bushee, Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston (New York: American Economic Association, 1903), cited in Ramirez, Crossing the 49th Parallel, 25-26. 46 Betsy Beattie, “‘Going Up to Lynn’: Single, Maritime-Born Women in Lynn, Massachusetts, 1879- 1930,” Acadiensis 22, no. 1 (1992): 68.

44

The membership records from Bostonia Lodge no. 505, in Boston, provide an example of how Anglo-Canadian migration affected American Orange lodges. Whereas Canada did not provide an especially large contingent within Maiden City or Lily of the Valley, just over half of the members of the Boston lodge were Canadian-born. The members of Bostonia no. 505 prove to be more elusive in census records, partly because of the greater likelihood that several residents of the larger city shared the same name, but it is also possible that these men were mobile at the moment the records captured them and they did not linger in Boston permanently. Of the ninety- four members listed in the roll book up to 1928, only forty-seven can be confidently tied to a place of birth. Of these forty-seven, however, twenty-four, or 51 percent, were Canadian-born, and these men were overwhelmingly from the Maritimes and . Only one originated in Ontario.

After Canada, the US was the most represented country of origin, with fifteen members.

Surprisingly, Ireland accounted for only two of those whose birthplace could be found, tying with

Scotland and even ranking behind of England, which provided three members.47 What is most surprising about the presence of so many Canadian-born men is not necessarily that they were so numerous in Boston, but that there were not more of them elsewhere. Clearly, Boston was an attractive urban destination well into the twentieth century for those migrating from eastern

Canada.

We can find a similar trend in the leadership of Maine lodges in this period. A directory of

British associations in North America in 1914 provides the names of the Master and Secretary for

173 Orange lodges, and census records show that nine out of the nineteen Maine members whose birthplaces can be located were Canadian-born. As in Bostonia Lodge, nearly as many were born

47 Bostonia Loyal Orange Lodge no. 505, Meeting minutes, 1924-1929, Collection D0462 1993-102, box1. Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Hereafter cited as Bostonia meeting minutes, HSP).

45

in the US, with only two having been born in Scotland and none in Ireland. Not surprisingly, most of the Maine lodges listed were clustered in the eastern half of the state, near the border with New

Brunswick. In the records of the State meetings in the first three years of the 1920s, the Canadian presence is even more pronounced. Of the members present whose birthplaces are known, two-thirds were Canadian, with the remaining members being American-born. While there were no known members of Irish birth, the Orange Order in Maine was still very much an organization populated by immigrants, albeit of Canadian birth. As in Bostonia Lodge, the

Canadian-born Orangemen were primarily from New Brunswick, , and

Newfoundland. While the number of known occupations (only fifteen) is too small to make any sweeping generalizations, there are still hints at some migratory links facilitated by occupation.

For example, the three representatives from the town of Mexico and the two from Millinocket all worked in paper mills. Two of them, George and Wesley Leckey, were electricians at the mills and likely related. Seth Myers and John Spinney were both from the easternmost town in the US,

Eastport, and were co-workers at the sardine cannery, a major business in the town.48

48 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com; Bostonia meeting minutes, HSP.

46

Maine Lodges in 1914.

A second trans-border region developed around the Great Lakes, with what would become

Ontario on one side, and Michigan and western upstate New York on the other.49 Canadians began migrating into Michigan in waves in the 1830s, spurred by numerous factors that affected demand for labor, including changes in reciprocity laws between the US and Canada, a shift toward dairy production, and mechanization. By the 1930s, 76 percent of Anglo-Canadian migrants in Michigan were from Ontario, as were 66 percent of those in New York. was the primary destination for Ontarians, and by 1880 they represented 23.6 percent of its foreign-born population. For

Ontarians, this was a relatively short-distance migration, as many had only to cross either the

Detroit or St. Clair River.50

49 For recent scholarship on the Great Lakes borderlands region, see Janet Dorothy Larkin, Overcoming Niagara: Canals, Commerce, and Tourism in the Niagara-Great Lakes Borderland Region, 1792-1837 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2018); Holly M. Karibo, Sin City North: Sex, Drugs, and Citizenship in the Detroit-Windsor Borderland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015), and Karl S. Hele, ed. Lines Drawn upon the Water: and the Great Lakes Borders and Borderlands (Waterloo: University Press, 2008). 50 Ramirez, Crossing the 49th Parallel, 10, 27, 31-32, 106, 109.

47

Canadian-born Orangemen were also, if we can gauge by the leadership in 1914, the majority in Michigan lodges. Of the thirty-seven listed as lodge masters and secretaries, the birthplaces of all but four are available in census records. Of these thirty-three, eighteen (55 percent) were born in Canada, and of the eleven whose province of birth we know, all were from

Ontario.51 The connection with Ontario is to be expected because of its proximity to Michigan.

Unfortunately, such a small sample size does not allow for much generalization, but a few elements beg for future investigation. Three of the four Orangemen in Sault Ste. Marie originated in Grey

County, Ontario, which included townships whose Irish Protestant population exceeded 40 percent in the 1870s. The area was also home to a healthy number of Orange Lodges from the 1830s into the late twentieth century.52 This over-representation in leadership could simply be a fluke of that year’s elections within the two represented lodges, but two of the men were brothers who migrated to the US at different times, suggesting the likelihood that when John Syer relocated in 1885, he was acting upon information gathered from his older brother Thomas over the previous three years.53

51 D. MacDougall, The American Year Book-Directory of Scottish Societies & British Associations in the United States, Canada & British Possessions (New York: Caledonian Publishing Company, 1914); “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com; “Canadian Census Collection, 1851-1916,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 52 Houston and Smyth, The Sash Canada Wore, 33, 39, 41. 53 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com.

48

Michigan Lodges, 1914.

The Role of the Loyal Orange Ladies Institution in Migration

The history of the Loyal Orange Ladies Institution, both in Ireland and abroad, has been obscured by the dominance of the male Loyal Orange Institution (LOI), the varying and unclear way in which it is connected to the men’s Order, and a paucity of sources.54 However, women were always important to the Order, whether in an official capacity or not, especially in marches and other public gatherings.55 As early as 1801, warrant number eight was issued for a women’s lodge in , indicating there were even earlier examples. The women’s Orders in

54 D. A. J. MacPherson and D. M. MacRaild, “Sisters of the Brotherhood: Female Orangeism on Tyneside in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries,” Irish Historical Studies 137 (2006): 40-60; Christi McCallum, “Orangewomen Show Their Colors: Gender, Family, and Orangeism in Ulster, 1795-Present” (PhD diss., Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2011), 2; MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, 131. 55 D. A. J. MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order: Female Activism, Diaspora and Empire in the British World, 1850-1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 2, 22.

49

each country were not formally connected and developed at different times. In Scotland the women’s Order was especially strong, and those lodges outnumbered men’s by the 1830s.

Women’s lodges did not appear in England until the 1860s, where they flourished around

Liverpool. Not much is known again about women in the Irish Order until 1887, when Protestant women reacted to the Home Rule movement by forming the Association of Loyal Orangewomen of Ireland. The ALOI enjoyed another resurgence in response to Home Rule in the 1910s under the leadership of Mary Johnstone, whose husband was a prominent member of the men’s Order.56

While they were not formally connected, the women’s Order served to connect Orangewomen throughout the Atlantic in many of the same ways that its male counterpart did.

The connection between American Women’s lodges and those in Ireland, Canada, or

Britain was informal and did not follow a standard procedure. In 1872 a group of women in New

York applied directly to another lodge in Birkenhead, England, to create one of the earliest women’s lodges in the US. The Birkenhead lodge facilitated the issuance of a warrant from the

Grand Lodge of England to Princess Orange Loyal Orange Ladies Lodge no. 6, which stayed in touch with Birkenhead until at least 1890, when one Sister McKeown visited from New York.

Conversely, a group of women in London, Ontario, applied to the American women’s Order in

1892 for their charter, even though other women’s lodges existed in the province by 1888.57 As there was no centralized body bearing clear responsibility for the creation of new lodges, new ones were formed without knowledge (or perhaps recognition) of previous groups. In August of 1876,

Margaret Thompson of Philadelphia gathered eleven women to organize the Daughters of Zion

Loyal Orange Ladies Lodge no. 1, with herself as Worthy Mistress (the highest office within a

56 MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 2-5; McCallum, “Orangewomen Show Their Colors,” 1; MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, 132. 57 Belfast Weekly News, August 24, 1872; Belfast Weekly News, September 6, 1890; MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 5, 80, 151.

50

local lodge) and Supreme Grand Mistress, presumably of the entire Loyal Orange Ladies

Institution (LOLI).58 It is unclear if or when this association was formally connected to other

American lodges or if it eventually subsumed extant ones.

Connections between women’s lodges remained important for years to come. As in the men’s order, visits of individual members were frequent, and those from the state or national level to a local lodge were notable, as when Supreme Grand Mistress Mame Bodkin visited Ellwood

City (Pennsylvania) Daughters of Honor Lodge no. 163 for a social hour that included several members of the State Grand Lodge.59 During the 1920s, the LOLI worked to bring about greater international cohesion, beginning with the English Grand Lodge’s meeting in 1925. Supreme

Grand Mistress of the USA Mary Henry visited the body the following year to facilitate international cooperation.60 This goal was supported at the Imperial Grand Orange Council, the men’s worldwide association, the same year. Imperial Grand President Frederick Dane recognized the perennial problem that the men’s order had faced: creating universal means by which

Orangemen might recognize each other. “It must be evident to all of us, the success that has attended the efforts of the Women’s Orange Associations throughout the World, and it seems to me that the mark of approval of the Council should in some way be placed on these organizations, should there not be some means found to link up these Women’s Grand Lodges so that when a member moves from one Grand Lodge’s jurisdiction to another, recognition would be given in the same manner as our own Association, let them adopt a universal pass-word and also issue a travelling certificate, and make certificates of membership to be accepted by the world over…All

58 Samuel E. Long, “The Orange Institution in the United States of America,” 1982. Box 18, shelf 2D, USA Materials, Orange Heritage Museum. Belfast, UK (hereafter cited as OHM). 59 “Loyal Orange Institution,” Pittsburgh Daily Post, February 14, 1915. 60 MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 81.

51

women’s organizations should be under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in whose territory they are working.”61 In 1929, Mary Henry was still hard at work on the project. In October she visited the Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge sessions, having recently returned from visiting ten different countries to establish the women’s branch of the Imperial Grand Orange Council, for which she served as the first Vice President.62

Meeting minutes for American women’s Orange Lodges are not available for the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, making it difficult to compare the makeup of men’s and women’s lodges. At the local level, we have only occasional mention of individual women in either the men’s meeting minutes or the press. However, the names and addresses of the Worshipful

Mistresses and Secretaries of forty-six primary lodges found in the Orange and Purple Courier’s directory gives us a snapshot of the female membership in 1920. As in men’s lodges, leadership roles were not restricted by class or national origin, therefore this list of officers for a particular year should be reasonably representative of the whole. The trends that emerge generally align with those found in men’s lodges, suggesting that ethnicity was a major factor in joining the LOLI. Of the ninety-five women listed, eighty-two could be found in census records. Exactly half of these women were foreign-born, twenty-two of them (27 percent of those found) in Ireland. Another eleven originated in Canada, along with six from England and one from Scotland. Of those who were native-born at least seventeen (42 percent) had at least one parent from Ireland, and another seven had parents from Canada, England, or Scotland. Taken together, this means that 67 percent of the known women’s officers for 1920 were either born in, or had at least one parent from, countries with strong Orange traditions. For example, New York-born Amanda Johnston, secretary

61 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report (1926), Box 18, shelf 2D, USA Materials, Orange Heritage Museum. Belfast, UK. 62 “Orange Ladies in Convention,” Pittsburgh Press, October 6, 1929.

52

of Princess LOLL no. 6, of New York City, was the daughter of William Johnston, a previous officer of Derry Walls LOL no. 2. Margaret Calhoun, of Daughters of Ulster no. 170, was the daughter of John Calhoun, officer of Sons of Joshua no. 55, Philadelphia.63

Marriage could also account for an otherwise inexplicable interest in Orangeism; another eleven of the women (13 percent) married first- or second-generation Irish, Canadian, English, or

Scottish men. It is not possible to verify if all these husbands were Orangemen, but at least two were found in a national directory of lodge officers from 1914. Ethel Callahan, Worshipful

Mistress of Ellwood City no. 163 and State Grand Treasurer for Pennsylvania, was married to

Robert Callahan, of Protestant Boys Lodge, although both were at least third-generation

Pennsylvanians, meaning it may have been Mrs. Callahan who brought her husband into the

Orange fold. Jennie Hood and her husband Robert were both born in Ireland, and both were active in their respective lodges.64 We cannot know whether individual women joined Orange Lodges because their husbands were active Orangemen or if, conversely, the Orange community facilitated their marriages, but both occurrences must have been frequent. In the former, new members were brought into the community, establishing the possibility of expansion beyond the core group of first and second-generation migrants. With the latter, Orange identity was reinforced and more likely to be perpetuated by endogamous marriages. In both cases, the Loyal Orange Institution strengthened its members’ sense of a shared identity by providing a venue in which both men and women could express it.

Conclusion

63 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com; Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, D0462-M98-13, Box 2, HSP; MacDougall, The American Year Book- Directory. 64 Ibid.

53

Several arguments can be made about the membership of the Orange Order in North

America, broadly, and the United States, specifically, when we explore the records discussed above. First, as in other areas where the Order flourished, it was predominantly working-class. In

Philadelphia, Boston, Maine, and Michigan, the members of the lodges for which we have detailed information worked in a variety of occupations, and while there were some white-collar workers in the ranks of the Order, the majority were blue-collar. There is also clear evidence that occupation and migration were often connected and intersected in ways that are difficult to untangle, but originated with ties formed in migrants’ countries of birth (Ireland or Canada).

The jobs in which Orangemen worked could be both specific to their location and their points of origin. When migrants from Ulster migrated to New England, where textiles were the cornerstone of the economy, they often found positions in the mills of Massachusetts, where they could use their skills from home. But those who went to the suburbs of Philadelphia may have been more likely to take the jobs that were available working for that city’s upper classes, such as drivers and gardeners. Likewise, both of these examples indicate that Protestants from Ireland took many of the same migratory paths as their Catholic countrymen. Irish Catholics famously worked the mills of New England and as domestics in virtually all the cities of the eastern seaboard, including Philadelphia. Other scholars have also documented instances of workspaces shared between Irish Catholics and Protestants, from the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania to the foundries of Troy, New York.65

It is also clear from these examples that migration networks were at work, helping individuals make choices regarding resettlement and making their transitions successful. In each locale studied, the majority of Orangemen were from a distinct region—usually a county, if not a

65 Kevin Kenny, Making Sense of the Molly Maguires (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 548.

54

specific town or village. It is very likely that a “charter” group (or individual) made its (or his) way to the area of settlement and sent back information to friends and family about job prospects, the cost of living, and other important details. Those who received this information in Ireland were likely optimistic about the opportunities and their ability to transfer skills already learned at home in the new environment to their advantage. Others may have followed long-established patterns of migration from Ulster, based on less specific, more common information, such as those who went to Philadelphia.66

Lastly, the maintenance of the Orange Order in the United States was dependent upon continued immigration, both from Ulster and Canada. At the peak of the Order’s size in the first decades of the twentieth century, its membership was overwhelmingly foreign-born. In

Philadelphia and Clinton, members came almost exclusively from Ulster. While it is unclear how connected to Ireland they remained, the presence of network migration suggests that their ties were at least somewhat significant. In Maine, Michigan, and Boston, the proximity to Canada and the region’s role as a transnational borderland rendered these areas viable destinations for Canadian- born Orangemen and -women, most of whom were the children of Irish Protestants. Together, all of these individuals, whether they were Canadian carpenters in Boston or Ulster weavers in

Clinton, brought with them attitudes and practices that were distinctly shaped by Irish ethnic politics, and which they would adapt to unique American circumstances. If in good standing with the Order, a member was immediately welcomed as a Brother or Sister anywhere in the world.

66 Lesger, Lucassen, and Schrover have argued for the importance of non-network migrants who follow labor demands. While many travel for work because they have specific information based on their network connections, some migrate with only general knowledge of the likelihood of opportunities in a particular location. Cle Lesger, Leo Lucassen, and Marlou Schrover, “Is There Life Outside the Migrant Network? German Immigrants in XIXth Century and the Need for a More Balanced Migration Typology,” Annales de Démographie Historique, no. 2 (January 1, 2002): 29.

55

Because the Order was an institution that was essentially Irish in nature, migration to the rest of the world was a fact of life for which practical considerations routinely had to be made. The Order dealt with this by attempting to create a unified transnational system based on the premise that the

Institution itself constituted a community that traversed national boundaries. Orangemen and - women in America clearly saw themselves as part of a larger diaspora. Long distances and the vagaries of human nature certainly made this system imperfect, but the dedication of its participants ensured the maintenance of a shared identity, where “an Orangeman should be a brother Orangeman the world over.”67

67 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report (1903), 27.

56

Chapter 2 Ethnic Associationalism, Mutualism, and the American Orange Order

When Irish Protestants and their descendants joined the Loyal Orange Institution of the

USA in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they were participating in a phenomenon that was ubiquitous throughout the Atlantic World. In North America in particular, voluntary associations experienced a “golden age” in this period, reaching heights in membership numbers that would never be seen again. Irish Protestants had a multitude of choices when deciding what organizations or they might join, and many of them did join several. But what drew these individuals to flock to the Orange Order specifically, with its limited appeal rooted in Irish ethnic politics? Orangemen and -women found many advantages in joining together with one another, including a social network, a ready-made community upon arrival to a new place, financial support in times of sickness and death, and the possibility of care in later life. But perhaps most important was a perceived shared history, a history that shaped their attitudes toward the society in which they lived and bound them together as a larger community with a common purpose and identity that was predicated on the common enemies of Catholicism and Irish

Republicanism.

These men and women, most of whom were Irish Protestants or their descendants, saw themselves as members of a distinct group connected by sometimes competing and sometimes complimentary threads of religion, ethnicity, and nationalism. These connections, some imagined

57

and some real, traversed the oceans of the world.1 Orangemen and -women across the globe saw themselves as one body committed to a particular set of purposes, including both the bolstering of

Protestant hegemony and supporting their Orange “brethren” and “sisters.” That they participated in such a specific transnational organization as the Loyal Orange Institution, which was rooted so strongly in Irish ethnic politics, demonstrates the strength of this shared identity and points to the existence of what could be called an “Orange Diaspora.”2

The American Orange Order in the Context of Ethnic Associationalism

While ethnic associations belonging to alienated migrant groups have captured the interest of many scholars, some recent works examine groups traditionally thought more likely to

“assimilate” to the dominant culture in North America. These examples help to provide a framework for understanding the motivation for migrants to join an organization as specific to

Irish Protestant identity as the Orange Order. Bueltmann and MacRaild have explored another dimension of largely Protestant combination, in their study of English ethnic associationalism in

North America from its colonial origins until the mid-twentieth century. Multiple societies developed as places for English migrants and their descendants to socialize, but the earliest, such as the St. George’s Society, were elitist in nature and existed primarily as philanthropic bodies.

North American Englishmen banded together to provide charity for their less fortunate newly- arrived countrymen. Later, as mutualism and self-help began to encroach upon the work of charity, working-class Englishmen formed their own mutual aid societies, such as the Order of the Sons of

1 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006). 2 Donald M. MacRaild has used the term in “The Orange Atlantic,” in The Irish in the Atlantic World (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2012), 307–26, and “Wherever Orange Is Worn: Orangeism and Irish Migration in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries,” The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies 28/29 (2002): 98-117.

58

St. George (OSStG) and, in Canada, the Sons of England. Both societies formed in the 1870s and in response to similar moods in their respective countries. The OSStG arose in Pennsylvania, partly in response to the appearance of the Irish Catholic Molly Maguires, and partly in response to the harsh capitalism of the coal fields. The Sons of England likewise formed in an environment of perceived threat to Englishness and Protestantism brought about by large waves of Irish Catholic migration in Canada. Both groups were working-class and sectarian; only Protestants, for the most part, could join. As members of these societies, English workingmen paid a small subscription fee which in turn entitled them to many benefits, such as sick assistance, funeral expenses, money for bereaved families, and even occasional fare for return migration. Both organizations also created nation-wide insurance schemes for members, and the Sons of England instituted a beneficiary department. Networking with fellow Englishmen was also crucial, as it must have led to valuable information about employment, housing, and other opportunities.3

We find further framing for Orangeism in another largely Protestant grouping in Tanja

Bueltmann’s previous work on Scottish ethnic associationalism. Intervening into debates over the meaning of such organizations, Bueltmann succinctly synthesizes much of the scholarship on the topic, arguing, “Ethnic associations and kinship networks are important tools migrants can use to counteract a sense of dislocation after migration; they can serve as safety nets, for the purpose of utilizing patronage or to generate social capital—an act that explains why they are a central characteristic of the migrant community life of a wide range of ethnic groups in diverse locations over time.” The ethnic association is a common—although not requisite—feature of diasporas and is actively maintained by migrants as “agents of diaspora.” Unlike members of many victim diasporas, the Scots—like Irish Protestants—were not compelled to live in ethnic enclaves, despite

3 Tanja Bueltmann and Donald M. MacRaild, The English Diaspora in North America: Migration, Ethnicity and Association, 1730s-1950s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 74, 109-118, 200.

59

their reputation for clannishness. Instead, they associated with each other as part of the migration process, as Moya has argued all ethnic groups did.4

While organizations like the Freemasons and ethnic groups like the English and Scots were frontrunners of early associationalism, Irish associations were significant and would eventually eclipse many other groups. From their earliest days, organizations like the Charitable Irish Society of Boston focused not only on assisting recent migrants from Ireland, but also bought school books for children, supported indigent women, and fed debt prisoners. It is unclear when Catholics began to dominate the CISB. St. Patrick’s Day celebrations were central to the CISB’s social calendar from the beginning, as the holiday was not so closely associated with Catholicism as it would be later. But by the 1840s, these celebrations included toasts to Irish Catholic emancipator Daniel

O’Connell, suggesting the society was at least predominantly Catholic by then. By the end of the nineteenth century, the CISB supported distinctly nationalist goals in Ireland, like Land Reform,

Home Rule, and Republicanism.5 Specifically Catholic organizations also formed in this period and included the Irish Catholic Benevolent Union (1859), the (1881), and the Ancient Order of Hibernians of America (AOH), which consolidated at a national level in

1871, the same year as the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA.6

The first individual American AOH lodges appeared as early as 1836 in New York and were connected to the parent organization in Ireland. Like other mutual aid societies, some lodges provided sick and death benefits, as well as unemployment funds, and helped members find work.

4 Tanja Bueltmann, Clubbing Together: Ethnicity, Civility and Formal Sociability in the to 1930 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014), 3,5, 11-12, 14; Moya, “Immigrants and Associations,” 839. 5 Funchion, Irish American Voluntary Organizations, 69-73; John Daniel Crimmins, St. Patrick’s Day: Its Celebration in New York and Other American Places, 1737-1845: How the Anniversary Was Observed by Representative Organizations, and the Toasts Proposed (New York: The author, 1902), 15. 6 Kevin Kenny, The American Irish: A History (New York: Pearson Education, 2000), 148.

60

The organization later funded scholarships for students to study at the Catholic University of

America. Serving a social function among Irish-Americans, the AOH sponsored its own St.

Patrick’s Day celebrations. The Hibernians were an explicitly Catholic society from the beginning, with origins in the agrarian groups of Ireland such as the Catholic Defenders, the , and the Ribbonmen. Throughout its history the AOH supported both nationalism in Ireland and Irish

Catholics in America. The AOH collected money for the Fenian cause in Ireland and the anti-

British Irish Ambulance Corps during the Boer War, and supported the Land Reform and Home

Rule movements, as well as the 1916 Easter Rising. At home, its members fought against

Protestants in the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844, could be found among the Molly Maguires in the 1870s, and were the most outspoken critics of the nativist American Protestant Association in the 1890s.7 The ascendency of Irish Catholic organizations clearly corresponded to the number of migrants arriving from Ireland: they also prompted Irish Protestants to counter Irish nationalism and its threat to take ownership of Irish identity.

A distinctly Protestant Irish identity, represented by the Scotch-Irish Society of America

(SISA), also coalesced during the late-nineteenth-century fraternal boom. Like the Germans of

Pennsylvania whom Russell Kazal has examined, Americans descended from earlier waves of

Protestants from Ireland, along with some prominent migrants from Ulster, began to identify as a distinct group in novel ways, forming the SISA in 1889. Only about twenty percent of the early members of the SISA were foreign-born, and much of their impetus may have been to solidify their place in the pantheon of “old stock” populations responsible for the peopling of America.

Although many Irish Protestants were descended from English settlers, this new movement seized

7 Funchion, Irish American Voluntary Organizations, 50-52, 56, 58-59; Kenny, The American Irish, 193, 202; idem., Making Sense of the Molly Maguires (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 15-18.

61

upon Ulster Scots heritage as a locus for its identity, highlighting both Irish and Scottish connections, while simultaneously emphasizing American patriotism as a primary concern. The society celebrated the Scotch-Irish contribution to the and settlement of the western frontier but had little interest in more recent migration from Ireland, even though its most prominent leaders were Irish-born. The SISA was officially non-sectarian and unconcerned with contemporary Catholic-dominated Irish immigration and was not particularly motivated by a desire to set itself apart from these new arrivals. Still, Irish Catholic observers were unconvinced, as some individual SISA members were actively anti-Catholic, and the group’s focus on Ulster

Scots heritage informally excluded most Catholics.8

The Structure and Functions of American Orange Lodges

Voluntary associations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were usually highly-structured and, like many of them—ethnic or otherwise—the format and ritualism of the

Loyal Orange Institution were based on . Previous studies of the Orange Order in

Britain and Ireland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries provide us with a great deal of guidance as to the structure and nature of the organization’s day-to-day operations. The records of American Orange Lodges reflect many of the same problems, concerns, and phenomenon found in the minutes of British lodges. Like lodges elsewhere, American ones were organized into a hierarchy, with local “primary” lodges at the bottom, district lodges immediately above, followed by state (or county, in Ireland and Britain) and then a national lodge, or Supreme Grand Lodge. In

England, new local lodges were usually created as offshoots of others that had grown too large and

8 Lindsey Flewelling, “Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2012), 90-95; Russell A. Kazal, Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); Kenny, The American Irish, 148.

62

unwieldy, but it is likely that in the US new lodges were often formed out of a necessity of distance.

Much of the Orange Order’s business, regardless of country, was conducted at the local level, either within or between lodges.9 Primary lodge elections were held every December, and the elected would take their positions the following January. Every lodge had a Master, who was elected by the lodge members. The Master would then appoint the Deputy Master, Secretary,

Deputy Secretary, Treasurer, and the first “Committee Man.” The first Committee Man would then appoint the second Committee Man, who would appoint the third, and so on. The secretary was required to keep an up-to-date roll book, which was made available for inspection at the request of anyone, including members of the public and authorities who had no affiliation with the Order.10

In the American lodges, members had to be adult, male, and Protestant. Those who migrated had to be Orangemen prior to migrating, while those who were born in the US did not need such an affiliation. But all had to be willing to swear loyalty to the US.11

The structure of Orange Lodge meetings was quite uniform everywhere and followed a

Masonic model. Because Orange Lodges in the US did not always have their own halls, as they more often did in Ireland, Britain, and Canada, they typically rented space from other fraternal organizations such as the Oddfellows, Masons, or Red Men. Meetings occurred once or twice a month, depending on the lodge, with occasional additional meetings for holiday or special event planning. The “Worshipful Master” (“Mistress” in women’s lodges) of the lodge would call the

9 Donald M. MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting: The Orange Order and Irish Migrants in Northern England, C. 1850-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 71-73; E. W. McFarland, Protestants First: Orangeism in Nineteenth Century Scotland (New York: Edinburgh University Press, 1990); Hereward Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain 1795-1836 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966); Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Constitution and General Regulations: As Adopted by the Supreme Grand Lodge ... Feb. 1870 (Jersey City, 1870), 10. 10 Loyal Orange institution of Ireland, Rules and Regulations ... Adopted by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (Dublin, 1823), 9-10. 11 Cecil J. Houston and William J. Smyth, “Transferred Loyalties: Orangeism in the United States and Ontario,” American Review of Canadian Studies 14, no. 2 (August 1984): 202.

63

meeting to order, followed by a review of the previous meeting’s minutes, which the present members would vote to accept. Two designated members would then read aloud the “lecture,” a scripted dialogue based on similar Masonic rituals that conveyed important tenets of Orangeism to the group. This was followed by the collection of dues, and while secretaries did not frequently take roll, the number of members present was often noted. At Maiden City no. 40 lodge in Clinton,

Massachusetts, for example, attendance could be anywhere from ten to more than twenty members, with occasional guests from nearby lodges. Next, the agenda was opened to anyone who had business or news to bring up, followed by “remarks for the good of the Order,” if someone was feeling loquacious, and sometimes the repetition of the lecture. The lodge master would then close the meeting according to Order rules.12 On particularly slow meeting nights, like September 22,

1899 in Clinton, a brother might offer a motion that the entertainment committee be asked to “get some refreshments” for after the meeting. Likewise, on Eve, 1897, Brother Crothers of the same lodge motioned that the committee procure cigars for all eight members present. These motions always passed and were sometimes the only thing noted in the minutes, but what went on in these post-meeting smoking and drinking sessions was unfortunately not recorded.13

The less-structured middle portion of the lodge meeting where members could introduce topics of discussion or action was often the most interesting, and it is also where we can learn much about the nature of the Order. Simply keeping the Order a viable entity with a budget and dues-paying members occupied at least part every meeting. The non-payment of dues (fifty cents a month) and absenteeism of some members was a perennial concern, and the beginning of the year was a natural time to deal with such house-cleaning issues. In January 1898, Brother David

12 Purple Star Loyal Orange Lodge no. 40, Meeting minutes, 1897-1932, Collection D0462 M98-14, box 4, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter cited as HSP). 13 Purple Star minutes, September 22, 1899, HSP.

64

Dickson of Clinton moved that all members three months or more in arrears be summoned to the following month’s meeting, which did indeed have a higher-than-usual turnout of nineteen members. The lodge moved to suspend all those who did not show up and were behind in dues.14

But because membership grew at a trickle, with only a few new members joining the lodge each year, the dilatory were typically given more leeway, as in March of 1900, when some members of the Clinton lodge were noted as being over a year in arrears.15 In March 1900, two brethren by the names of Mingus and McCullough were “removed” (from the rolls) for non-payment, having likely disappeared from the social circle surrounding the lodge. The members of Maiden City suspended William Johnston in September of the same year for non-payment after he failed to appear in response to a summons from the lodge two months prior.16

This was not Johnston’s first trouble with Maiden City. Just months before, the lodge had charged him with an unspecified violation of the Order’s Constitution, although a review from the

Supreme Grand Lodge in New York found there was not sufficient violation to warrant his expulsion.17 Members did occasionally resign of their own accord, including several other

Johnstons, likely relatives of the William who had been asked to leave. Johnston proved to be troublesome later, as well. After being reinstated in January of 1904, he resigned again in February, along with Robert Shutes, although Shutes later changed his mind.18 In June of the next year,

Maiden City received a request for Johnston’s transfer certificate from the Liberty True Blues no.

14 Purple Star minutes, January 1898, February 1898, HSP. 15 Purple Star minutes, March 23, 1900, HSP. 16 Purple Star minutes, September 28, 1900, HSP. MacRaild’s study shows lodges rarely had 100 percent subscriptions paid. See MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity, and Fighting, 206. 17 Purple Star minutes, March 23, 1900, July 27, 1900, HSP. 18 Purple Star minutes, January 22, 1904, February 24, 1904, HSP.

65

358, also of Clinton. The request was denied because he was not actually a member and would have to be reinstated first. A petition requesting the same was denied again in January of 1906.19

Because the Protestantism of the membership of a given lodge was taken for granted, direct references in the meeting minutes to religion were relatively few. It was usually only in public performances, especially when interrupted by clashes with Catholics, that the underlying meanings gave way to full sectarian expression. Those that do crop up in the minutes are uncharacteristically impassioned. In June of 1898, the members of Maiden City read aloud the national Supreme Grand

Master’s statement from the meeting of the Supreme Grand Lodge of the US. It referred briefly to the ongoing Spanish-American War, stating, “the state in which our country was in at the present time with having a war with the most Catholic land in the world which we see will be a victory for the Protestant faith.”20 A war against a Catholic nation provided Orangemen with another intersection of Protestantism and patriotism that they might use to assert themselves as fitting additions to the republic, and the members of Maiden City had voted at the previous meeting to suspend the dues of any member serving in the military during the war.21 At the September meeting, the members went further and voted to pay $19.59 for the burial of Brother Joseph

Newell, who had perished in Cuba as a member of Company K of the 9th Massachusetts Volunteer

Infantry. As the company never saw action, Newell likely died of disease. Paying for the funeral of a deceased brother did not appear to be unusual, as it was well within the scope of the lodge’s mutualistic activities, but the lodge’s generosity only extended so far, and a motion to donate an additional $25 to Company K was lost.22

19 Purple Star minutes, June 23, 1905, January 26, 1906, HSP. 20 Purple Star minutes, June 24, 1898, HSP. A more detailed discussion of the Order’s reaction to the war is presented in Chapter 4. 21 Purple Star minutes, May 27, 1898, HSP. 22 Purple Star minutes, September 23, 1898, HSP; “A list of Spanish American War Veterans buried in

66

Direct references to Protestantism also came about when members transgressed group norms regarding religion. At Maiden City’s December 1905 meeting, an unrecorded member brought forth the charge against William Lister that he had married a Catholic, which violated the most basic rules of membership in the Order. Even worse, a priest had performed the ceremony.

A committee was appointed to investigate the matter, and at the next meeting in January they recommended Lister be expelled from the Order permanently, having concluded he had indeed committed the offense. The lodge voted to comply.23 Although we do not know for certain, it is reasonable to assume Lister had not been attending for some time, knowing full well the likely repercussions of even courting a Catholic, let alone marrying her. He had surely already given up any notion of participating in the Order ever again, and the lodge’s actions were likely a formality to make official what already occurred.

Primary lodges did not operate in a vacuum, and interaction with other Orange bodies, from local to international, was a central function of the lodge. The most frequent visitors to Maiden

City were members of Loyal Orange Lodge no. 358, Liberty True Blues, also of Clinton, with whom Maiden City often coordinated.24 Most of the discussion between the two lodges between

1898 and 1900 revolved around the creation of a district lodge and coordination of July 12 celebrations.25 In May of 1898, Maiden City decided to forgo planning its own Twelfth celebration, instead opting to defer to the True Blues’ entertainment committee for plans. At the next month’s

Massachusetts,” The Spanish American War Centennial Website, accessed July 25, 2018, http://www.spanamwar.com/Massachusettsgraves.html; “A Brief History of the 9th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry,” The Spanish American War Centennial Website, accessed July 25, 2018, http://www.spanamwar.com/9thmass.html. 23 Purple Star minutes, December 15, 1905, January 26, 1906, HSP. 24 Purple Star minutes, HSP; The American Year Book-directory of Scottish Societies & British Associations in the United States, Canada & British Possessions (Scotland: Caledonian Publishing Company, 1914), 76. 25 Purple Star minutes, June 24, 1898, May 25, 1900, HSP.

67

meeting, members gave their accounts of the festivities, with apparently mixed reviews. James

Crothers stated he was “ashamed” of the whole entertainment committee, although no explanation as to why was recorded. Brother Fred Richardson had an entirely different take, and after singling out the women’s lodge to praise their efforts, proclaimed he had never had such a good time in his life.26 In June of the following year, the members of Maiden City again opted to join another lodge’s invitation to celebrate , this time from George Lodge in

Whitinsville, about forty miles away. The lodge voted to pay “car fare” for all members who attended.27 By 1900, Maiden City was back to celebrating with its neighbors just down the road, with coordination from the State Grand Lodge.28 The next year, the lodge attended the celebrations in Boston, again paying fifty cents toward transportation for its members.29 Cooperation between these lodges continued for years, and it appears that they eventually merged as membership declined.

If multiple primary Lodges existed within close enough proximity, such as the same city or county, they might form a District Lodge, which was made up of members from the constituent lodges and met less frequently. Representatives from districts—or primaries, if there were no district Lodge—would convene annually in State Grand Lodges. State Grand Lodges would then send delegates to the Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA. While these bodies might only meet once a year, their officers carried out work on behalf of their respective constituents year-round.

Communication with the State Grand Lodge and Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA was frequent as well, as these bodies depended on delegates from local lodges for successful turnouts. In general—although notable exceptions are discussed below—superior lodges did not have much of

26 Purple Star minutes, May 27, 1898, July 22, 1898, HSP. 27 Purple Star minutes, June 23 and July 5, 1899, HSP. 28 Purple Star minutes, May 25 and June 22, 1900, HSP. 29 Ibid, June 28, 1901.

68

a hand in the business of local lodges except when asked, such as in the previously mentioned case of William Johnston, and in the confirmation of new officers when elections were held at the beginning of each year. It is apparent that members esteemed the practice of casting a wide net when cooperating with each other, indicating a strong commitment to the larger Orange community.

Orangemen were not only concerned with collaborating with brethren from their own environs but viewed their duty of bolstering their vision of Protestantism as a global project. In their fellow Orangemen abroad, they saw brothers in a common cause, and they regularly communicated and met with their international counterparts. Primary lodges often communicated directly with other lodges across national boundaries, aided by national directories produced national Supreme Grand Lodges and disseminated globally. In 1914 alone, the Clinton lodge

(which had been renamed Purple Star no. 40 in January) received at least three requests from lodges in , London, and Wicklow asking for donations to fund new Orange Halls. Each time, the Clinton Orangemen passed around the hat to collect, raising varying amounts.30

Representatives from the Grand Lodges of Ireland, England, Scotland, and British North America first met in Belfast in 1866 to discuss the creation of an international governing Orange body “to promote intercommunications between the various Orange Institutions and Associations in Great

Britain, Ireland, and the colonies.” The first meeting of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of the

Loyal Orange Association of the World took place in London in 1867 and included representatives from the Grand Lodges of all the nations present the previous year.31 John J. Bond, the first

Supreme Grand Master of the USA, presented himself at the next triennial meeting in Toronto in

30 Purple Star minutes, February 10, 1914; July 10, 1914; October 24, 1914, HSP. 31 Loyal Orange Association of the World, Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report of Proceedings of the Triennial Session of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of the Loyal Orange Association of the World (Glasgow, Scotland: Published at the Office of Imperial Grand Secretary, 1903), 51.

69

1870. The US Order had only received its Grand Lodge charter from the Irish Supreme Grand

Lodge in January, and many of the visitors at the Toronto meeting were happily surprised not only at Bond’s appearance, but the very existence of an American wing of the Institution. Bond attended the next meeting in Glasgow in 1873, as well, but American attendance was spotty over the years, likely because the cost and difficulty of travel and comparatively low membership of the American

Order.32

American attendance was highest when the Imperial Council met in North America, as at the 1879 meeting in Ottawa and 1891 meeting in Toronto, but Americans were often completely absent when the convention was held in Britain or Ireland. Conversely, few British Orangemen traveled west when the meeting was held in North America, and the New York meeting of 1900 attracted only one member from the British Isles, stalwart and strident William Johnston, a

Unionist MP from Belfast who was imprisoned for his battles against the Party Processions Act, which prevented Orange (and other) marches.33 When US Orangemen did attend meetings overseas, however, they were very active in the business of the Council and attracted a good deal of positive attention. At the 1891 meeting, “Much satisfaction was expressed at the presence of so many distinguished Orangemen from the Grand Lodge of the United States,” including Canadian- born Supreme Grand Master of the USA and soon-to-be president of the American Protective

Association, W.J.H. . Many American Orangemen did make it to Glasgow for the 1897 meeting, which was especially well-attended due to Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee.34

The Imperial Grand Orange Council held in Dublin in 1903 was estimated to be the largest meeting yet and the presence of its Imperial Grand President, David Graham of New York, was

32 Ibid, 54; Funchion, Irish American Voluntary Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983), 224. 33 Aiken McClelland, William Johnston of Ballykilbeg (Lurgan, Co. Armagh: Ulster Society, 1990). 41. 34 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report (1903), 55, 59, 61, 62.

70

one of the apparent highlights of the meeting. Graham was the first and only American ever elected to the position, and he reflects the importance of migrants living abroad to the Order, which saw its work as a global project. In “A Sketch” summarizing the meeting, Joseph Cloughly, Assistant

Grand Secretary of Scotland, lauded the presence of “the heroic Bro. David Graham.” Referring to the infamous Orange Riots in which Orangemen fought Irish Catholics who responded violently to the Protestants’ annual July 12 parade, Cloughly lauded:

In 1871, when shots were fired, and blood was shed in the streets of New York city, because Orangemen dared assert themselves and walk as they did in the home land, he it was who bore aloft the Orange standard, and brought it safely home, though danger threatened him, and bullets pierced the flag… Ireland, and the North of Ireland too, which has given so many stalwart Orangemen to the world, is his birthplace, but he lives in New York, under the stars and stripes, and his whole life's work seems to be devoted to advancing Orangeism, which he loves with all his heart, and by bringing it closer together in the bonds of friendship this Britain of ours and that American land, the land of his adoption.35

In David Graham, Orangemen saw an American Orange hero and took to heart the rhetoric of his opening address, which the Past Grand Master, the Earl of Erne, claimed was the “finest address he had ever heard on such an occasion.”36 In fact, Cloughly incorporated Graham’s flag imagery when describing the comradery felt between American Orangemen and their international counterparts while enjoying some of the social events surrounding the event.

Our brethren from the United States were loud in their praise of their flag of the Stars and Stripes... Evident it was that John Bull and Jonathan his cousin wanted to be more than cousins. They wanted to be brothers. Every place the brethren from the States attended... there was seen an American flag... and one place there was where a shout was heard from an irate “bhoy” of Drogheda, “Take that flag down!” But the cry was heeded not. Boldly it waved both going and coming.37

35 Ibid, 66. 36 Ibid, 63. 37 Ibid, 67.

71

Graham was a fellow Orangeman and his credentials were certainly bona fide, but he also represented what British and Irish Orangemen saw as an extension of their own battle against the machinations of the Roman Church. Protestant Americans, especially fellow Orangemen, were allies in a global struggle to maintain ascendancy.

The world-wide character of the Orange Institution has been demonstrated, and those two flags, America’s Stars and Stripes and England’s Union Jack, have by the meeting been brought much closer together. The great Anglo-Saxon race is now more united than ever. Long may their flags fly side by side, emblems of liberty the wide world over. Long may the countries continue together their glorious onward march, holding fast those Protestant principles which have made them rich and great and strong. The eye of Rome is on each. Next to Britain, America is the prize she aims at.38

At least in Joseph Cloughly’s eyes, if Orangemen in America and Britain did not stand together, they would most certainly fall separately. Indeed, MacRaild has shown that Orangemen created the Triennial Council for the express purpose of fomenting brotherhood and unity throughout the diaspora. Because they considered Catholicism and Irish nationalism as a global threat, only a global response would suffice, and the Council was imperative in reinforcing a transitional Orange identity.39

Beyond the participation and leadership of Loyal Orangemen from all over the world, including the United States, many of the auxiliary events surrounding the World Council revolved around sights specific to Orangeism and Irish sectarian politics. On the Saturday preceding the convention, many delegates traveled to Glasgow to enjoy an Orange parade in one of the strongholds of Orangeism. They left that evening to get to Belfast in time for another parade on

Monday, and then to on Tuesday for a reenactment of the Battle of the Boyne. When the

38 Ibid, 69. 39 MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, Chapter 8.

72

Orangemen returned to Dublin on Wednesday for the Great Public Meeting that would kick off the World Council, they estimated an attendance of 5,000. Thursday featured the Greater Banquet, which included “the Duke of Manchester down to the ordinary working man,” with an excursion up the Boyne on Saturday.40 All of these events, especially taken together, would have special historical meaning for Orangemen, and they all represented components of a shared identity and history.

The Imperial Grand Orange Council also served as a de facto adjudicator between conflicting Orange bodies. The Ottawa council in 1879 was asked to resolve a dispute between two bodies both claiming to be Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA and did so amicably.41 A comparable situation concerning ’s Grand Lodge was settled in 1900 and another arose from Queensland, Australia in 1903. In that case the “spurious” lodge sent a communication to the Council claiming it had received its charter from the , although representatives from Ireland denied any knowledge of it. The Council also received correspondence from the officially recognized lodge, and the matter was handed to the Earl of

Erne, Grand Master of Ireland and Past Imperial Grand President.42 The Report of 1906 tells us the issue was resolved and had been chalked up to a misunderstanding, which is highly plausible, given not only the great distance between Australia and the center of the Orange world, but within

Australia itself.43 That Orangemen separated by such great distances were willing to place the fate of their lodges in brethren located halfway around the world speaks to the power of the perceived connection among each other across the globe.

40 Ibid, 64. 41 Imperial Orange Grand Council, Report (1903), 55. 42 Ibid, 14, 26. 43 Imperial Orange Grand Council, Report (1906), 26.

73

The Loyal Orange Ladies Institution of the USA

The Orange Order’s global ethnic connections were not sustained on the efforts of men alone. As with any ethnicity, familial connections were a primary determinant, meaning that women were central to the maintenance of an Orange identity. Beyond their role within Orange households, women also played crucial parts in the function and vitality of the Order. The connection between the men’s and women’s sections of the Loyal Orange Institution is complicated, as it is dictated by gendered tradition as much as formality, and varied by location.44

Even though they were initially separate organizations, they were at the same time inextricable, as they held the same goals and beliefs, shared families between them, and were bound by an uneven power dynamic. Early in the fraternal boom of the mid-nineteenth century, women formed auxiliaries of prominent fraternal orders such as the Masons and Oddfellows, often despite opposition from their male counterparts. When men’s orders did accept women’s auxiliaries, it was as subordinate honorary wings.45 While this does not appear to be the case with the origins of the Loyal Orange Ladies, to this day women’s lodges still cannot participate in a Twelfth parade in Ireland unless invited by the men. Women are not allowed to attend Irish men’s lodge meetings at all, while they may be invited to meetings in Scotland.46

The relationship between the men’s and women’s arms of the Orange Order in America generally appears to have been cooperative. By the 1890s—and likely earlier—the two

44 Because records created by American Orangewomen before the 1940s are rare, we must rely upon the press and passing mentions in the men’s records. For the first scholarly study dedicated solely to women in the Order, in England, see D. A. J. MacPherson and D. M. MacRaild, “Sisters of the Brotherhood: Female Orangeism on Tyneside in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries,” Irish Historical Studies 137 (2006): 40-60. 45 Mary Ann Clawson, “Nineteenth-Century Women’s Auxiliaries and Fraternal Orders,” Signs 12, no. 1 (1986): 46-50, 55. 46 D. A. J. MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order: Female Activism, Diaspora and Empire in the British World, 1850-1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 5; Mervyn Jess, The Orange Order (Dublin: O’Brien Press, 2012), Chapter 2.

74

organizations coordinated at both the local and national level, with lodges meeting either concurrently or a day apart. Sometimes, as in the 1916 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge meeting, the opening and closing sessions were held jointly, and visits by committees between the groups continued throughout the conventions. The 1915 convention was closed with “remarks for the good of the Order” given to the assembly by Past Grand Mistresses Annie Banburry and Katie

Harbison, current Grand Mistress Mame Bodkin, State Grand Mistress Mary Cole, and State Grand

Secretary Sadie Hanns.47 At a Pittsburgh district meeting in 1894, a joint committee “for the advancement of the Order” formed with Jemima Whitten as chair and Lizzie McNeil as secretary.48

When the Supreme Grand Lodge of the LOI met in Boston the same year, the delegates appointed a committee to confer with a committee from the LOLI to draft mutual recognition signs and passwords, so that individual visiting Orangewomen and Orangemen might be known to each other.49 The national body formally recognized the LOLI as an auxiliary of the men’s Order in

Philadelphia in 1916, giving approval to the LOLI’s constitution and a “Mutual Recognition

Degree,” which equated the Royal Arch Purple Marksmen and Ladies of the Scarlet Degrees.50

After this, LOI meeting minutes note that newly-elected officers of women’s lodges were installed by the men’s State Grand Master and, like other orders of the period, Orangemen served on advisory boards for and as members of Ladies Orange Lodges.51

47 Pittsburgh Press, February 12, 1899; Pittsburgh Daily Post, August 22, 1915; Pittsburgh Daily Post, August 22, 1916. 48 Pittsburgh Press, March 25, 1894. 49 The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, June 1894, Box 18, shelf 2D, USA Materials, Orange Heritage Museum, Belfast, UK (Hereafter cited as OHM). 50 The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, June 1916, 54-55, USA, OHM. 51 Purple Star minutes, January 9, 1915; LOI USA Maine State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1927, Collection D0462 1993-102, HSP; Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, September- October 1920, D0462-M98-13, Box 2, HSP.

75

Writing about Orangewomen throughout the British Empire, historians have noted the tension between conservative gender norms, especially regarding femininity and religion, and the public use of those norms to influence popular political attitudes. Conservative Protestants, like many in the late nineteenth century, saw and presented women as virtuous keepers and instructors of religion in the home, responsible for raising their children to be the next generation of good

Protestants.52 While many men’s societies resisted women’s participation in fraternal life,

Orangemen saw women’s role in society as complimentary to the goals of the Order. In an appeal for greater coordination between all Women’s Orange Associations throughout the world during the meeting of the Imperial Council in 1926, President Fredrick Dane argued, “the future success of the Orange Association in my mind largely depends on the bringing up of the boys and girls, and who can have more influence than the mothers?”53

In every country where Orangewomen and Orangemen organized, they explicitly tied their

Protestantism to patriotism. In Britain, Ireland, and Canada, this patriotism hinged on loyalty to , but in the context of the US, Orangemen and -women directed their loyalty at the

American republic itself. As in the LOI, LOLI members presented themselves to the public primarily as patriotic Americans while casting the struggle against Catholic tyranny as a historical arc shared between Britain and America.54 One way in which Orangewomen publicly expressed their patriotism was through military-style drill team performances. In June of 1918, Iron City

Lodge near Pittsburgh (a men’s lodge) invited other local lodges to their hall for a celebration that included representatives of the women’s Supreme Grand Lodge “cleverly” performing a drill,

52 Clawson, “Nineteenth-Century Women’s Auxiliaries and Fraternal Orders,” 45; Christi McCallum, “Orangewomen Show Their Colors: Gender, Family, and Orangeism in Ulster, 1795-Present” (PhD diss., Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2011), 4; MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 6, 12, 33. 53 Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report of the Proceedings, July 1926, 12-13, USA, OHM. 54 Discussed in greater depth subsequent chapters.

76

“which included the regular orange exhibition and many additional patriotic movements” added by Drill Master Thomas Bleakley. The women were accompanied by a pianist and received a

“souvenir” as thanks from Iron City’s Grand Master. Following a whole program of entertainment—including Agnes Kipp’s recitation of “The Old Orange Flute,” in which an

Orangeman marries a Catholic to find his flute will only play Protestant songs—the meeting was closed by singing “America.”55 Occasionally, drill teams from multiple lodges competed against each other.56 As part of the Twelfth festivities in 1925, the Buffalo (New York) Ladies’ Community

Drill Corps gave their own exhibition directed by Captain Christian Ransler and led by Katherine

McClure and Salena McGolpin, and donated a silver loving cup as the prize for the winning Orange

Ladies team.57 Celebrations in women’s lodges might also include the pledge of allegiance, the singing of “Star Spangled Banner,” or the performance of a “historical pageant,” which undoubtedly would have been of a patriotic nature.58

In addition to reinforcing Protestant patriotic sentiment, Orangewomen were invariably involved in the more social aspects of Orangeism and were often responsible for arranging and planning events, in addition to providing entertainment. Many of the same events used to showcase the patriotism of women’s lodges also included lighter fare. Programs performed by members frequently followed official meetings, especially those including multiple lodges, and combined a variety of talents. After a 1915 social and lunch to honor ’s birthday, the

Orangemen and -women of Butler, Pennsylvania sang, gave recitations, and performed on

55 Pittsburgh Press, June 16, 1918; Oak Publications, Folksinger’s Wordbook (New York: Oak Publications, 1973), 318. 56 Pittsburgh Press, April 1, 1917. 57 Democrat and Chronicle, July 11, 1925. 58 “Twelfth Anniversary Ladies Orange Lodge,” New Castle News, May 14, 1925; Historical Pageant Given by Members of Ladies Orange Lodge,” New Castle News, September 24, 1926.

77

bagpipes, mandolin, and guitar.59 In 1925, Orangewomen in New Castle, Pennsylvania celebrated the anniversary of their lodge with a play, “accompanied by an improvised jazz band of five members who were en-costumed (mostly).”60 These events were often open to a larger audience beyond lodge members, and one announcement promised, “Members of sister lodges, their families and friends, will be made as welcome as though it were their own lodge.”61 More reluctant participants might even be lured by the prospect of coffee and cake, ice cream, or pie.62 The annual

Halloween party put on by Orangewomen was one of the highlights of the Orange social calendar in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania and was planned jointly between men and women and held in

Protestant Boys no. 136’s hall. The party included, “elaborate decorations, games and amusements,” and of course food.63

Some social events organized between Orangemen and -women were specifically intended to foment relationships between the two sexes. The Orangewomen of New Castle advertised a

Valentine party in 1911, and in Pittsburgh, the Daughters of Honor Lodge regularly arranged a

“moonlight excursion” with dancing until 1:00 AM on the steamboat Sunshine.64 Whether it was because they could not resist the romance of such affairs or a more mundane process was at work, young Orangemen and -women unquestionably found partners between the linked organizations.

Brethren Charles Montgomery and John McMasters of lodges 29 and 45 married their sweethearts,

Lizzie Watson and Jennie Hill, both officers of LOLL no. 129, in a joint ceremony in February of

59 “Ladies Orange Lodge Held Entertainment of Much Interest,” Butler Citizen, February 23, 1915. 60 “Twelfth Anniversary Ladies Orange Lodge,” New Castle News, May 14, 1925. 61 “Ladies Orange Lodge Entertains Large Crowd,” New Castle Herald, October 15, 1908; Pittsburgh Press, June 28, 1908. 62 “Loyal Orange Institution,” Pittsburgh Daily Post, February 14, 1915; “Orange Ladies’ Lodge,” New Castle News, January 3, 1922. 63 “Hallowe’en Party Arranged by Members of Lodge,” New Castle News, October 26, 1926. 64 “Social Calendar for the Week,” New Castle Herald, February 20, 1911; Pittsburgh Press, June 28, 1908; “Loyal Orange Institution,” Pittsburgh Daily Post, July 25, 1915.

78

1895.65 The members of American Volunteers LOL no. 21 were happy to report in September of

1916 that Brother Harry McCluskey and Nettie Benson of LOLL no. 4 had recently wed, making it the third recent union between the two lodges.66

American Orangewomen were also actively involved in planning July 12 celebrations, unlike their sisters in Ireland. While women did not march with the men in parades until the twentieth century, they were often either solely or jointly responsible for accompanying festivities, such as picnics held at the parade’s end, which routinely included dancing and drill team exhibitions.67 Ladies Orange Lodges also participated in pan-Protestant parades coordinated with like-mined “patriotic” organizations. In one such event in 1915, the Pittsburgh Press estimated a total participation of 30-50,000, with the Orange Ladies accounting for over 200 automobiles.68

Beyond participating in marches by providing numerical strength, Orangewomen procured substantial portions of the financing required to make the best possible public presentation.

Orangewomen were present at the installation of officers for LOL no. 82 of Chestnut Hill,

Pennsylvania in 1920, where they presented the men with new parade regalia, “which cost upwards of one thousand dollars, this amount being raised for the purpose by the lady friends and a committee of the lodge.”69

Much of Orangewomen’s activities, including those described above, involved fundraising, especially for philanthropic causes.70 While surviving records tell us frustratingly little about

65 Pittsburgh Press, March 3, 1895. 66 Pittsburgh Daily Post, September 24, 1916. 67 “Orange Ladies Lodge,” New Castle Herald, June 24, 1918; Pittsburgh Press, June 28, 1908; Democrat and Chronicle, July 11, 1925. 68 “Thousands Take Part in Parade,” Pittsburgh Press, October 24, 1915. 69 Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, HSP. 70 Historians have increasingly demonstrated the importance of women to social movements and causes, especially in fundraising. For examples, see Beverly Gordon, Bazaars and Fair Ladies: The History of the American Fundraising Fair (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998); Julie Roy Jeffrey, The

79

women’s fundraising activities before the 1940s, we know that they were essential in keeping

Orange projects afloat wherever they were active. MacRaild has found that English Orangewomen tended to be better fundraisers than their male counterparts. Orangemen favored “smoking concerts” in which each man paid an entry fee and was provided with cigars and refreshments, with little profit left over, while women tended to favor selling crafts and food, which yielded greater profits.71 Canadian Orangewomen were especially adept fundraisers, with soldiers, the infirm, and children as their primary recipients.72 Their American sisters had similar benefactors.

Many of the above-mentioned events organized by Orangewomen, like entertainment programs, parties, and socials, included an admission fee or requested a donation, although the amount was rarely reported in announcements. On special occasions, lodges brought in popular performers, as when Pittsburgh Orangewomen hosted an evening with John Mellor, an English-born transplant to the city. Mellor was a publisher of British war songs, which he performed to raise funds for soldiers’ benefit through organizations like the British Red Cross. The proceeds from his recital to a packed Orange hall in October 1916 were evenly split between No Surrender Lodge no. 64 and the soldiers.73

Mutualism and the American Orange Order

Great Silent Army of : Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998); Julie L. Holcomb, Moral Commerce: and the Transatlantic Boycott of the Slave Labor Economy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2016); Shirley Tillotson, Contributing Citizens: Modern Charitable Fundraising and the Making of the Welfare State, 1920-66 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2009). 71 MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity, and Fighting, 136; MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 55. 72 MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 6, 150, 153, 156. 73 Pittsburgh Press, November 5, 1916; George Thornton Fleming and American Historical Society, History of Pittsburgh and Environs, from Prehistoric Days to the Beginning of the American Revolution (Pittsburgh: American Historical Society, Incorporated, 1922); John Mellor, British War Songs (Pittsburgh: J. Mellor & Sons, 1916).

80

Mutualism was a prominent feature of Anglo fraternal organizations, and although the

Orange Order was never able to provide for the sick or dead and their families to the same degree that other organizations did, it still provided some benefits. Like Orangemen elsewhere, those in

America were predominantly working-class, which meant illness could have a swift impact on their material wellbeing.74 The typical Orange Lodge, on both sides of the Atlantic, had a “sick committee” that was responsible for distributing money to brothers in times of bad health. Usually, a lodge brother or family member would present the request for help to the lodge at its monthly meeting, at which time the present membership would vote. All such motions recorded in the minutes of Maiden City were passed. However, in one instance, the ten dollars offered to John

Sample in March of 1899 were rescinded at the next meeting without any explanation recorded.75

For working men who depended on daily wages to keep themselves and their families afloat, the money paid by the sick committee was much-needed relief. The ten dollars that had been offered to John Sample was typical of the amount paid to sick members of Maiden City in the first decade of the 1900s. Although it probably did not cover lost wages, it might have been enough to pay a doctor’s bill. The lodge voted to pay the same amount for John Wright’s doctor bill in 1901, after he had been “on the sick list for some time.”76 John Martin, a stalwart of Maiden

City, received sixteen dollars for four weeks of sickness in 1905, and William Gilmore handed in a bill a few months later for two weeks of ill health.77 The funds for the sick committee came out of the regular member dues, which were fifty cents a month, and from occasional additional donations, which were likely prompted by a passing of the hat.78 In August of 1924, Lily of the

74 MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity, and Fighting, 200-201. 75 Purple Star, March 24 and April 28, 1899, HSP. 76 Purple Star, November 22, 1901, HSP. 77 Ibid, July 28, 1905 and January 26, 1906. 78 Ibid, March 24, 1905.

81

Valley Lodge in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, held a moonlight boat excursion and dedicated the proceeds to “support Brothers’ dependents who are in need.” Later the same year, the lodge voted to donate $20 to Brother Thomas McClain, an active member, after the death of his young son.79

The Order’s ability to provide an official and uniform death benefit fund was sporadic and seemed to vary by location. In 1917, the Pennsylvania Grand Lodge began the process of creating a statewide death insurance benefit.80 By the 1920s, recording the deaths of members and paying out benefits became a regular part of Lily of the Valley Lodge meetings. When Brother John Stark died in 1925 after he had been receiving sick benefits for some time, the lodge calculated that his wife was entitled to one additional week of sick benefit, at $5, and $100 in death benefits. In addition, the lodge members provided flowers for the service, which most of them attended, paid the $27 bill for the hearse, and voted to “drape” the lodge’s charter for sixty days in Stark’s memory.81 Orangewomen also took care of their own, and many lodges outside of the US had benefit funds along the same lines as the men’s lodges. These funds might provide for funeral expenses, unemployment, sickness, or even lost wages due to pregnancy.82 To what extent

American women’s lodges organized funds for their own members is obscured, but some examples of Orangewomen supporting each other in times of need do appear. In March of 1928, for example, a special meeting of Lodge no. 190 in Rochester, New York was held to arrange the funeral of its

Worshipful Mistress, Margaret Murney.83

79 Lily of the Valley minutes, August 8, 1924; November 28, 1924, HSP. 80 Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1917, Collection MSS-093, HSP. 81 Lily of the Valley minutes, January 9, 1925; February 27, 1925, HSP. 82 MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 58. 83 Democrat and Chronicle, March 16, 1928.

82

American Orangewomen had also been directing their efforts toward children and elderly

Orangemen for several decades. By the 1890s, there was talk of creating an Orange Home for orphans and elderly members. The spread of orphanages throughout the US coincided with the peak in fraternalism and associationalism, and Timothy Hacsi has argued that from the 1830s to the 1920s they were the most important institutions in children’s lives, after schools and churches.84

Between 1880 and 1923, the number of children in such institutions rose from 50,000 to 143,000.85

Most were small-scale local affairs that strove to provide children with a good education and morals based in a particular Christian denomination. Some of the earliest children’s homes were

Catholic-run, and by the 1890s these housed about half of all children in orphan asylums. Private donations were the largest funding source for Catholic institutions, comprising 25 percent of their revenue, but nearly as much support came from public appropriations. Protestant homes tended to rely more heavily upon private donations, which accounted for more than half of their income, and was also true of fraternal orphanages when they began to emerge in the 1890s.86 Over seventy fraternal homes appeared by the 1920s. Most were founded by Masonic or Oddfellow lodges and they varied widely in their operation and success.87

The Loyal Orange Institution was not immune to the spirit of child welfare in this period, and both the Grand Lodge of Ireland and District Lodge of London began developing schemes to support the orphans of Orange families in 1888.88 It is not clear if the Order ever established an orphanage in Ireland, but the Lord Enniskillen Orphan Memorial Society provided money for

84 Timothy A. Hacsi, Second Home: Orphan Asylums and Poor Families in America (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2014), 1-2. 85 Beito, Mutual Aid, 63. 86 Hacsi, Second Home, 6, 12, 99. 87 Beito, Mutual Aid, 63, 87. 88 Belfast Weekly News, May 26, 1888.

83

clothes, educational needs, and medical care for orphans in Ireland and still operates today.89 By the 1920s, the Order had established homes in England and Canada as well.90 Once American

Orangemen and -women put the plans for an Orange Home in motion, the Loyal Orange Ladies made it the primary focus of their fundraising efforts.91 Orangewomen were involved from the beginning, and one Orange source credits them for the original idea. At the 1894 session of the

Supreme Grand Lodge of the LOI, Orange officers heard an address from Supreme Grand Mistress

M.J. Conkey, who argued, “It does seem strange to me that hundreds of Protestant children are cared for in Convents while we stand with folded arms. If we do not take an interest in the Orphan children of our cities and towns we are not fulfilling our Mission as Orangewomen… [we] recommend that this Instiution found a National Orphan’s Home for the homeless children of our

Brothers and Sisters to save them from falling into the clutches of Rome.”92 The body agreed and appointed a committee of five women to begin plans for an orphan home in cooperation with the men’s organization.93

Funds were collected from both women’s and men’s lodges throughout the US. At the

August 1900 meeting of Maiden City in Massachusetts, Supreme Grand Lodge delegate George

Stewart reported that the national body had voted to begin collecting twenty-five cents per year from each member toward the funding of the home.94 The following April, the lodge voted to send

89 The Orange Order, “Supporting Charities: Lord Enniskillen Memorial Orange Orphan Society,” accessed February 26, 2018, http://www.grandorangelodge.co.uk/lord- enniskillen-memorial-orange-orhan-society#.WpQsPajwZPY. 90 MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 153, 156; MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity, and Fighting, 208; Scott W. See, Riots in New Brunswick: Orange Nativism and Social Violence in the 1840’s (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 75. 91 Samuel E. Long, “The Orange Institution in the United States of America,” 1982, OHM. 92 Supreme Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, History of the Orange Home (Orange Home Board of Directors: Hatboro, PA, 1944), USA, OHM. 93 Ibid, 2. 94 Purple Star minutes, August 25, 1900, HSP.

84

$20 in response to a request from a circular from the SGL soliciting donations. By September of

1901, enough money had been raised to purchase a sixty-eight-acre piece of farmland in Hatboro,

Pennsylvania, and construction on the building began just a year later, with Imperial Grand

President David Graham laying the cornerstone at a ceremony in November. More appeals followed in 1902, and in March of 1903, members of Maiden City donated ten books for a bazar to raise funds.95 Over $63,000 was raised through various efforts and in May of 1903, over 2,000

Orangemen from several states attended the grand opening of the Orange Home. They welcomed thirty-six boys, twenty-eight girls, and forty-two “old couples” as its first residents. Unlike like

Orange homes in Ireland, the home in Hatboro was open to all Protestant children, not just those from Irish or Orange families. The home was also open to former Orangemen and their spouses as a retirement home.96 The building had forty-two rooms, including two dining rooms, a swimming room, and a chapel, all of which were connected by telephone, and was powered by an on-site power plant. Only children of Protestant background were admitted, and they were taught by accredited public school teachers. Boys were taught farming, while girls were taught homemaking, and there were early plans to produce a newspaper and teach printing.97 By 1915, the home was fielding a girls’ band to perform at Orange events.98

Reverend George Worrell, the President of the Orange Home Committee and its superintendent, visited Maiden City in November of 1903 to promote the home. The lodge voted to sell tickets for Worrell’s talk to raise money for the home at twenty-five cents each. Later the

95 Ibid, March 24, 1905; The Scranton Tribune, November 29, 1901. 96 The Fulton County News, June 3, 1903. 97 Ellwood Roberts, Biographical Annals of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Containing Genealogical Records of Representative Families, Including Many of the Early Settlers and Biographical Sketches of Prominent Citizens (New York: T. S. Benham, 1904), 329. 98 Evening Public Ledger, July 12, 1915, Night Extra.

85

same month, Brother George Stewart reported from his visit to the State Lodge meeting that ten thousand dollars had been willed to the home, and a quarter of a million-dollar legacy had been set up for its maintenance.99 Many of the social and public events Orangewomen organized benefitted the home. Proceeds from Twelfth picnics usually went to this cause, and each session of the Pennsylvania Grand Lodge of the LOLI appointed a committee to supervise the home’s funds.100 In 1908, the men’s Supreme Grand Lodge session appointed the Ladies’ Orange Home

Visiting and Inspection Committee, which could visit and inspect the home at any time.101 It is unclear what prompted the creation of this committee, but it is plausible that the women’s Order wanted more say and control over an endeavor for which they were, in part, financially responsible.

The women of the committee took their responsibility seriously and in 1913 the

Pennsylvania Grand Lodge heard the report of a committee investigating charges of abuse at the

Orange Home.102 In September of 1911, Mame Bodkin, a member of the Visiting and Inspection

Committee, wrote to the Pennsylvania men’s Grand Lodge with charges of “cruel and barbarous treatment” of the orphans. An investigative committee appointed by the State Grand Lodge found the adult inmates and employees at the Orange Home reluctant to speak on the matter because of threats of firing and removal by the home’s president, George Lemmon. The committee was still able to gather enough evidence to be satisfied that Sister Bodkin’s allegations were true and recommended that corporal punishment be banned at the Home. A separate committee appointed by the home’s Board of Directors, which included Lemmon, responded that the Pennsylvania

Grand Lodge had no authority in the matter, and only committees appointed by the board would

99 Purple Star minutes, August 1900; April 1901; July 1902; March 1903, HSP. 100 “Orange Ladies Lodge,” New Castle Herald, June 24, 1918; Pittsburgh Press, October 21, 1928; “Orange Ladies in Convention,” Pittsburgh Press, October 6, 1929. 101 SGL of the USA, History of the Orange Home, 44. 102 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1913, HSP.

86

have access to the home in the future. It is unclear how much this issue was influenced by emerging factionalism within the American Order. These events were recorded in the minutes of the 1913

Pennsylvania Grand Lodge sessions, which were exhaustingly dedicated to the recent suspension of over 20 lodges in the state by the Supreme Grand Master earlier in the year. Bodkin’s charges were serious and taken as such, and while the Board of Directors rejected the Pennsylvania Grand

Lodge’s right to intervene in the matter, Lemmon was soon replaced as the president of the home, as was the superintendent.103

The role of women in the Orange Home, especially in monitoring the safety and wellbeing of the children, highlights a tension other historians of the women’s Order have noted. Just as in

Canada and Britain, Orangewomen’s active participation in the Order simultaneously reinforced and negated their gendered role in the organization.104 As women, they accepted that the care of children was within their purview, but the formal and organized nature of an institution like the

Orange Home meant they had a stake in men’s decisions concerning the home. By 1916, the women’s Order was demanding greater control over such decisions. At the Supreme Grand Lodge meeting that year in Pittsburgh, a group of Orangewomen asked the body to consider giving the

Orange Ladies five of the fifteen seats on the home’s board of directors.105 Whether the body took up this issue is unknown, but the Loyal Orange Ladies did not gain representation on the board until 1972. This change was likely the result of a much longer struggle that unfortunately has not survived in the historical record.106 During the 1920s, during which the American Order was split, the struggle over control of the home resulted in at least one of the many court cases involving

103 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge minutes, 1913, HSP. 104 McCallum, Orangewomen Show Their Colors, 4; MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order, 7. 105 “Orange Lodges in Convention,” Pittsburgh Daily Post, August 22, 1916 106 Long, Orange Institution in the USA, 12-13.

87

both sides, but the Lemmon faction seems to have maintained de facto control at first, before losing it to the opposing faction in the middle of that decade.107 It is unclear how long the home housed children, but it continued to care for elderly Orangemen until 1996, at which point the Institution sold it and created a fund to support college-bound children and grandchildren of Orangemen.108

A postcard from 1906 featuring the Orange Home in Hatboro, PA. Author’s collection.

Conclusion

The various international arms of the Loyal Orange Institution strove to operate in as uniform a fashion as possible. This was precisely the aim of the Triennial Council, when it was

107 Lemmon v. Kirkland, 2871 (D.C. Cir. 1915); Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Kelly, 134 A. 514, 287 (Pa. 1926). 108 “Principles of the Loyal Orange Order,” accessed March 29, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20160916173805/http://02accb8.netsolhost.com/loiusa/charities.html.

88

established in 1865.109 Their members constantly worked toward this goal, Irish Grand Lodge masters strove for it, and the issue of conformity occupied much of their time and energy when they met and corresponded. Participation among members and adherence to Orange values were also taken seriously, and negligence in either could jeopardize one’s place within the organization.

Individual lodges also communicated with each other at every level of the Order’s hierarchy. While

Orangemen and -women at the district and possibly even the state level may have all known each other either personally or in name, they felt a bond with fellow members across the world, even if they themselves never traversed an ocean to meet them. Because of the uniform structure of, and long distances between, lodges, Orangemen and -women in America were able to imagine themselves as part of a community that transcended national boundaries.110 Those who could attend

Imperial Grand Orange Council meetings took active roles at every level, up to the highest position. In turn, they were revered as brethren and sisters who worked toward a common cause in what probably seemed like an unlikely place. During their conventions, Orangemen and -women shared in events that publicly displayed their pride in an Orange identity and visited sites sacred to their shared history. This identification as part of the Orange community was so important that when conflicts arose, they were sometimes settled with the help of international supervision.

In the United States, the Loyal Orange Institution resembled many of the numerous other voluntary associations of the day. The American Order blurred the already tenuous lines between fraternal organization, ethnic association, and mutual aid society. It presented itself as a patriotic society, full of loyal men and women who swore allegiance to America, but its reason for being verged on ethno-nationalist loyalty to a foreign regime, and the group offered little incentive for native-born Americans to join, attracting few beyond those who had been members elsewhere and

109 MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting, Chapter 8. 110 Anderson, Imagined Communities.

89

their relatives. Beyond socializing with individuals from a similar background with a strong sense of shared identity, the Order functioned, at various times and places, as a mutual aid society.

Depending on the size and resources of a particular lodge, Orangemen and -women provided financial (and unrecorded emotional) support for their brethren when they fell on hard times, and for their families when a member died. Once they were able to raise the funds, lodges extended this aid to elderly members and their spouses, while engaging in the broader trend of providing charity for orphaned children—if they were Protestant. Members of the Loyal Orange Institution clearly viewed themselves as an exclusive community, based on their identity as Orangemen and

-women with a unique shared history, and a sense of belonging to a transnational group with one eye always turned toward Ireland. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, this identity was not only defined by who belonged, but also who did not.

90

Chapter 3

The Two APAs: The American Orange Order and Anti-Catholic Nativism in the Nineteenth Century

At the Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA in 1894, Supreme Grand Master and American

Protective Association member Francis Campbell made “the awful menace of European immigration” the primary subject of his address to the body. Citing the US Treasury Department’s

Report on European Immigration, Campbell related many “appalling facts and statistics” relating to “organized societies for the transportation of criminals to this country,” overrunning it with pauper labor. A bevy of current labor issues—including strikes by miners in Pennsylvania and

Pullman employees in Illinois—were attributed to foreign trouble-makers, often despite clear evidence of the resistance of native-born workers. Strikingly, Campbell offered a surprising solution, given his role in an organization that included so many migrants:

Thoughtful students have finally come to the conclusion that the solution of the question lies in the restriction of immigration, either by closing our gates entirely for a term of years, or appointing examiners for the leading ports of the Old World, as contemplated by Congressman Stone’s bill.1 Pennsylvania Congressman (and later governor) William A. Stone’s bill would have amended the

Immigration Act of 1891, requiring migrants arriving in the US to present a signed certificate obtained from the US Consul before migration stating they were legally allowed to enter the country.2 Campbell urged all members to agitate politically for the passage of the bill, and the body also resolved to send an endorsement to APA-backed Michigan Congressman W.S. Linton’s protest against the appropriation of funds to sectarian schools.3

1 The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, June 1894, Box 18, shelf 2D, USA Materials, Orange Heritage Museum, Belfast, UK (Hereafter OHM). 2 “The Stone Bill Was Endorsed,” Los Angeles Herald, January 21, 1895. 3 SGL of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1894, OHM.

91

Two years later, Campbell returned to the theme of immigration, this time citing statistics provided by anti-immigrant Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. The picture he painted was grim; while the foreign-born were just over one-third of the white population, they provided more than half of the nation’s convicts and two-thirds of both the nation’s paupers and juvenile delinquents. Most of the illiterate came from Hungary, Russia, Poland, and Italy. Campbell also discussed ways to take action, based on the efforts of the APA-organized National Council of Patriotic Organizations.

The previous December, the NCPO endorsed several congressional bills, including the Stone Bill and the more successful McCall Bill, which passed the Senate under Lodge’s name, but was vetoed by President Cleveland. The bill excluded anyone over the age of sixteen (unless part of a family) who could not read or write in any language. Campbell recommended that $25 (a small and possibly symbolic or regularly occurring donation) of the Orange Order’s money be donated to the

NCPO, while the committee on resolutions acted to adopt the NCPO’s platform and present it to both the Republican and Democratic parties. If neither party was receptive, the Order would follow the NCPO’s call to form a third party—the “American Party.”4

Orangemen were some of the primary architects for the rhetoric of the APA, and they certainly echoed it in their own meetings, but calling for immigration restriction demonstrates the tenuous position in which they placed themselves by aligning with other anti-Catholic organizations. While they very much believed themselves to be patriotic Americans and strove to present such an image to native-born and “older stock” citizens, they were also reluctant to give up their ties to an ethnic identity that compelled them to keep one foot in the “old country.”

American Orangemen navigated this issue by replacing loyalty to the crown with patriotism for

4 The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, June 1896, OHM; “The Lodge Immigration Bill Passes the Senate,” The Semi-Weekly Times-Democrat (, Louisiana), December 22, 1896.

92

the United States. They recognized that, unofficially, Protestantism was as central to American nationalism as it was to . Once the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA emerged, it painted itself as a one of many “patriotic orders” of the time, positing Protestantism as a positive attribute of good citizenship, while presenting Catholicism as antithetical to freedom. In an additional effort to participate in public and private debates over the fitness of Catholics as citizens,

American Orangemen joined other anti-Catholic organizations with explicitly patriotic names throughout the nineteenth century.5 Two of these, the American Protestant Association

(established 1842) and the American Protective Association (1887), became virtually synonymous with Orangeism. While neither was founded by Orangemen or even Irish Protestants, both were essentially co-opted by members of the Orange Order to attain greater power and membership.

Orangemen rose to the highest leadership positions within both organizations, filled their ranks to the point of complete domination in some locales, and were articulators and co-architects of the discourse and tactics that American nativists employed.

But the foreign nature of the Order aroused the suspicions of many native-born Americans, especially when coupled with violence in the streets. As anti-Catholicism intensified and began to coalesce into a movement in the 1840s, Orangemen began to find other outlets to express the tenets of their Order. Their anti-Catholic rhetoric—concerns over the temporal power of the Pope, the erosion of the separation between church and state (especially in education), and Catholic political power—all found a receptive audience among a sizeable number of native-born Americans.6 Of

5 Higham and Kinzer have both noted but declined to explore in detail the fascinating problems raised by this phenomenon. John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New York, NY: Antheneum, 1963), 61, 83; Donald L. Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism: The American Protective Association (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964), 34-35, 91-92. 6 John Wolffe, “A Transatlantic Perspective: Protestantism and National Identities in Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain and the United States,” in Protestantism and National Identity: Britain and Ireland, c.1650-c.1850, ed. Tony Claydon and Ian McBride (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 291-

93

course, the Orange Order’s foreign origin and connections posed a problem to its collaboration with nativist organizations. This tension prevented, to some extent, either APA from becoming a national force comparable to the Know-Nothings in the 1850s. The foreign element also contributed to factionalism within the American Protective Association and, more importantly for

Orangemen, their failure to fully commandeer the APA as their own political apparatus.

The Loyal Orange Institution and the American Protestant Association

In 1825, Britain banned all oath-bound associations to thwart Daniel O’Connell’s Catholic

Association, which agitated for Catholic rights. Finding their Order suddenly illegal, Orangemen dissolved it and reconstituted under terms that satisfied the law. The Order was banned again— this time specifically—in 1836 when English Orangemen were accused of plotting to usurp

Victoria’s ascension to the throne by placing their Imperial Grand Master, the Duke of

Cumberland, there instead. The ban remained until 1845. Because the American Order was re- stocked primarily through new immigration, it is possible Irish Protestants in the 1830s and 1840s did not bring the formal structure of the Order with them to America, only its attitudes. Informal individual lodges must have existed, but references to them in the record are virtually non-existent.

However, Orangemen were able to instead express anti-Catholic attitudes through American nativist organizations, such as the American Protestant Association (APA) and the Order of United

Americans. In the 1850s, the APA sponsored Washington’s Birthday parades that included lodges marching under the banners “No Surrender” (the official motto of the Orange Institution) and

“Excelsior Orange Lodge.” According to Michael Gordon, one APA member noted in 1870 that the group was clearly known as “an Ulsterman’s order,” having adopted the regalia of the

309; Donald M. MacRaild, “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery’: Militant Protestant Preachers in the Nineteenth-Century Anglo-World,” Journal of Religious History 39, no. 2 (June 1, 2015): 224–43.

94

Orangemen in 1856. By the 1860s, the advent of the Irish nationalist Fenian movement (shorthand for the Irish Republican Brotherhood, or IRB) led to a corresponding revival of the Orange movement and the repeal in Britain in 1870 of the Party Processions Act of 1850, which had banned parades that might lead to sectarian conflict. Because Orange lodges in the US were not yet nationally organized, they relied upon affiliation with British lodges. With the resurgence of

Orangeism and anti-Catholic nativism in the 1860s and 1870s, Orangemen filled the ranks of the

APA and used it as an outlet to practice their traditional modes of asserting Protestant Ascendancy.

It is no accident that Orange Lodges reappeared in the US beginning in 1867.7

While Orangeism and the American Protestant Association would be virtually synonymous by 1870, the APA was not created as a strictly Irish organization. It was founded in November

1842 after a group of twenty-six ministers from several Protestant denominations, including

Baptist, Episcopal, German Reformed, Congregational, and Methodist churches, circulated a call to fellow ministers to organize a Protestant association “for the protection and defense of the rights and principles which distinguish the Protestant churches of this country, from the threatening assaults of Romanism.” The APA’s constitution stated several goals for the group, including interchange between the ministers of multiple congregations and denominations for instruction of the “differences between Protestantism and Popery” and circulation of books and tracts “adapted to give information on the errors of Popery.”

In their initial Address of the Board of Managers, the APA laid out the reasons for a need for such an organization. The Address stated that while the current state of Catholicism in the

United States was not yet serious enough to warrant alarm, the public could not remain complacent to the dangers of the “assaults of Romanism.” In the tract, the Pope is an antichrist who has been

7 Michael Allen Gordon, The Orange Riots: Irish Political Violence in New York City, 1870 and 1871 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 21-23.

95

biding his time in a biblically-prophesied lull in the power of the Roman Church, and America is presented as a perfect venue for him to stage a return to power. To answer the anticipated argument that American Catholicism was different in that the Pope did not exercise the same power over individuals as in Catholic countries, the authors of the address turned to an example of literature published by the Catholic seminary in Maynooth, Ireland, in which Flemish author and theologian

Peter Dens argues that it is acceptable to kill heretics such as Protestants. This example is important, argues the address, because many of the priests coming to the US were allegedly trained at Maynooth, where Dens’ work was used as a textbook. The problem of Ireland is also invoked when the address notes, “Our connection with the British Isles especially is so intimate, that no great political or ecclesiastical changes can take place there, without being sensibly felt by our country.” Because of America’s historical connections to Britain and the rising tide of immigration from the Isles, the influence of the via Ireland should not be ignored or taken lightly, they believed.8

In 1844, the APA was a central actor in nativist riots in Philadelphia. Having successfully contributed to anti-Catholic sentiment in the city, it embroiled itself in controversy sparked after

Catholic leaders asked that Catholic children be allowed to read the bible of their choice instead of being instructed with the King James version. The school board granted the request, and the

APA demonstrated, leading to several days of rioting in May and July.9 While historians have noted the presence of “Orange Societies” in Philadelphia at this time, there is no clear evidence to

8 American Protestant Association, Address of the Board of Managers of the American Protestant Association: With the Constitution and Organization of the Association (Philadelphia: American Protestant Association, 1843). 9 Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860; a Study of the Origins of American Nativism (Gloucester, Mass: P. Smith, 1963), 220-222.

96

point to Orange involvement in this early melee.10 But by the 1850s, connections began to appear between the APA and Irish-born Protestants.

In June 1853, Waldense Lodge no. 9 of the APA presented a gold to “no-popery” speaker Alessandro Gavazzi in front of a full admiring house.11 An Italian-born former priest,

Gavazzi had rejected Catholicism after involvement in the Italian revolutions, believing that

“Popery and liberty were incompatible.” He fled to England and was invited to the US by

Protestant organizations based on his reputation as an animated and compelling speaker. He first came to America earlier in 1853, where he heightened anti-Catholic rhetoric with calls to destroy

Popery, instead of merely “protesting” it as Protestants. Many of his harangues were aimed at

Papal Nuncio Cardinal Gaetano Bedini for his role in defeating the Roman Republic in 1849, and

Historian Ray Allen Billington credits Gavazzi with ushering in a new wave of nativist violence unseen since the Philadelphia episode in 1844. Cardinal Bedini also toured America in 1853, his appearances were plagued by violence. Trouble followed some of Gavazzi’s lectures, too, and only a few weeks before his appearance before the APA, his speeches had caused riots in Montreal and

Quebec, with Orangemen engaging in the affray on Gavazzi’s behalf.12

Wearing his former monastic clothes, Gavazzi delivered a lecture that warned the audience of the dangers of those within the Anglican church who sought to reintroduce older traditions typically associated with Catholicism. In particular, he lamented crosses appearing on Protestant churches and being worn by American women. While the spread of Romanism itself was of great concern, Gavazzi argued that hiring Catholic servants was perfectly acceptable, as being in the

10 Elizabeth M. Geffen, “Violence in Pennsylvania in the 1840’s and 1850’s,” Pennsylvania History 36, no. 4 (1969), 392. 11 “Presentation of a Gold Medal to Father Gavazzi—Lecture upon Present and Future America,” New York Times, July 1, 1853. 12 Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 301-304; MacRaild, “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery,’” 230, 232, 238-239.

97

household of a good Protestant might not result in complete conversion, but at least temper their

Romanism and thus their influence. “[T]hrough these very girls, Roman Catholicism gains ground every day in this country,” he warned, followed by an admonishment of those who would police their own language against Romanism in the presence of their employees. “In order to prevent the increase of the influence of Romanism, the Protestants of the country must be truly American, in feelings and action.” Gavazzi also bemoaned New York Archbishop Hughes’ influence over the press, and the willingness of American politicians to “kneel and humiliate themselves before

Archbishop Hughes and the Jesuitical party.”

Later in the speech, Gavazzi argued that “no stranger from a foreign shore” should be allowed to become a citizen before first living in the US for ten years. He also argued that all should be educated in public schools, before ending with a condemnation of Bedini, blaming him for the death of Ugo Bassi, a priest and Italian nationalist whose rejection of Papal authority over both himself and of Italy endeared him to anti-Catholics abroad. The medal was presented by Irish- born William J. Irvin, English-born Reverend John S. Inskip, and one J. MacElroy, all officers of the APA lodge. Inskip noted it was “an evidence of our present esteem for you,” and the medal featured an open Bible on the back, with Gavazzi’s name, the date, and the name of the lodge on the front.13 Gavazzi spoke to Waldense Lodge again in November on “the duty of Americans towards America.” Tickets were twenty-five cents each, and on December 8, Gavazzi was again presented with a gold medal from the APA, this time after speaking at the Odeon in Williamsburg, by the aptly-named Reverend Dr. Church of the Second Baptist Church.14 Gavazzi gave the same

13 “Presentation of a Gold Medal to Father Gavazzi—Lecture upon Present and Future America”; “1850 United States Federal Census,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 14 New York Times, November 4, 1853; The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10.

98

speech and others on topics dear to opponents of Catholicism, including Orangemen, throughout the North Atlantic. His rhetoric appealed to native and British-born APA members alike.

Parading for Protestants

Besides sharing “no-popery speakers,” the APA also adopted the Orange Order’s tactic of marching, and the parading tradition in Irish ethnic politics found a new purpose in the northeastern

United States. American Orangemen used methods that were universally understood to assert territorial and social dominance, to display their loyalty to the nation, and to stifle displays of opposing views, all in a very public way. Like Orange parades, APA parades sometimes ended in sectarian violence. In September 1854 in Newark, New Jersey, the local APA lodge held its first annual parade to celebrate the seating of the first American Congress in Philadelphia in 1774. Over twenty lodges from New York joined, and estimates of the number parading ranged from 1,500 to

3,000. The parade marched from 11:30 in the morning until 2:00 in the afternoon, at which point participants rested at Military Hall, where they were provided with “abundant refreshment.” After reassembling at 3:00, the parade passed a German Catholic Church at Broad and William Streets, where it was assailed by shots, stones, and brickbats from the interior of the church. The Protestant crowd descended upon the building and destroyed everything inside within minutes. Two priests, believed by the crowd to be the assailants, were found inside and one was killed. One Irishman was killed in the rioting outside, and another Irishman named John McCarthy received two gunshots in the abdomen and was not expected to survive. In reporting on this violence and coming to terms with what it said about the sectarian split among the rising tide of immigrants, the New

York Daily Times made a few observations on the composition of the APA. They noted, “It is, perhaps, well to add, that this association is composed of Irish and Americans, Scotch and English.

But four Germans are enrolled among its numbers,” and it “is composed almost entirely of foreign-

99

born citizens, Germans and Irish, and scarcely any one suspected that a sufficient number of

Protestant foreign born citizens lived among us to make so fine a display as we witnessed to- day.”15

It is unclear who either charged or denied the presence of Orangemen within the APA, but a letter to the Times six months later appears to confirm the Irish presence. On March 21, 1855, in response to a line in that morning’s paper, an anonymous and indignant APA member wrote:

In your paper this morning you say, “all the Irish benevolent and kindred Irish Associations were intending to join in the processions.” On the part of the American Protestant Association, allow me to say that the greater number of the members thereof are Irishmen, but it never was and never will be their intention to join in any precession the object of which is the show reverence for the birth or death of any man. Yours, APA. 16 While the nameless Irishman’s annoyance at being lumped in with Irish Catholics (a group whose repression was one of the central goals of the APA) is understandable, his assertion that the

Association would never celebrate the birth of any man is somewhat ironic. Because the APA strove for an image as a patriotic, distinctly American organization, many of the parades it sponsored celebrated George Washington’s birthday. One such parade in New York in 1860 included an APA lodge named “Prentice Boys, no. 7,” a reference to the heroics of the Protestant

Apprentice Boys during the Siege of Derry in 1689.17 The Prentice Boys no. 7 appeared again alongside Enniskillen Lodge no. 29 thirteen years later in another parade honoring Washington.18

By 1860, violence was often anticipated at APA parades, and the acknowledgement of the

Irish Protestant contingent of the Association was more widespread. reported in September of that year, “The APA of this city, with kindred societies from New York and

15 “Terrible Riot and Bloodshed,” New York Daily Times, September 6, 1854. 16 “Irishmen that Don’t Honor St. Patrick.” New York Daily Times, March 21, 1855. 17 “The Celebration in This City.” New York Times, February 23, 1860. 18 “Washington’s Birthday,” New York Times, February 23, 1873.

100

elsewhere, chiefly Irishmen, paraded the streets this morning. Mayor Bigelow, in anticipation of a riot, ordered out the First Regiment of the Newark Brigade.” The parade passed peacefully, although an African American woman was mortally wounded when the crowd fired pistols in the air from the 5:00 p.m. train that took them home.19

It is no surprise that as the Fenian movement gained strength in the US throughout the late

1860s, the Irish nature of the APA became more apparent and Orangeism enjoyed a resurgence.

When the APA of New York held a meeting in April of 1867 to honor the anniversary of Martin

Luther’s appearance before the Diet of Worms, Chairman Nicholson offered hypothetical advice to the . “[B]efore they placed their President of the on his seat they would have to encounter the men they met at Derry and the Boyne, and now as then their battle-cry should be, ‘No surrender.’” That battle cry is the official motto of the Loyal Orange Institution and would have had little meaning to observers who were not Irish. During the same gathering, a man named

McKinlay also invoked Anglo-Irish history while asserting his Protestant patriotism. For him, two events represented “glorious resurrections of Protestantism—when Cromwell sounded his trumpet and called it from its grave, and the other when it gave birth to the American flag.”20

In 1867, Orange Lodges independent of the APA appeared in New York, and parading

Orangemen in the city were pelted with bricks and potatoes as they marched. The first American

Supreme Grand Lodge was formed in 1870, but this fact would be overshadowed by other events involving Orangemen that year.21 On July 12, nearly 3,000 men, women, and children assembled under Orange banners at Elm Park in New York. While they were subjected to some taunts and jeers en route to the gathering, the Protestants arrived unharmed. However, by two in the afternoon

19 “Parade of American Protestant Associations at Newark.” New York Times, September 6, 1860. 20 “Local Intelligence.” New York Times, April 20, 1867. 21 Gordon, Orange Riots, 23.

101

a mob of Irish Catholic workers had assembled and began throwing rocks over fences surrounding the park. When these failed to elicit a response, the mob began firing shots over the heads of the crowd. Armed Orangemen in the park returned fire, and a riot ensued, with eight men losing their lives.22

When Orangemen requested to parade again in 1871, the request was denied by police commissioner James Kelso under the direction of boss William Tweed, whose power was heavily dependent on the Irish Catholic vote in New York. However, pressure from

New York’s Republican elite, who saw Irish Catholics as a threat to American—and especially

Republican—ideals, pushed Governor John Hoffman to override the police commissioner’s ban.

In addition to allowing the parade, Governor Hoffman also ordered both the city police and state militia to safely escort it. By the time the parade got underway, thousands of spectators, mostly

Irish Catholic workers, filled the streets, and the Orangemen were almost immediately met with all manner of hurled objects. Some police and militia members responded by firing at the offenders, which in turn caused armed members of the crowd to fire back. Officers also used their batons and bayonets against the crowd, while onlookers threw rocks and pottery at them from windows above. The parade pushed on, passing through both friendly and hostile neighborhoods, with multiple violent clashes, until finally dispersing at Cooper Union. By the time the it ended, more than sixty people had been killed or mortally wounded, and over one hundred were arrested.

Most of the dead and incarcerated were Irish Catholics.23

To gauge Pittsburgh’s Irish Protestant reaction to news from New York, one reporter asked a local man identified only as a member of the American Protestant Association with the initials

J.A. about the “similar character” of the APA and Orangemen. J.A. responded, “Yes, they are

22 “Bloody Riot: The Feud Between the Orangemen and the Catholics,” New York Times, July 13, 1870. 23 Gordon, Orange Riots, 104-148.

102

closely enough allied to stand shoulder to shoulder in resisting to the death such unwarranted outrages as have been committed against their brothers in New York.” When asked what action local members might take, he again linked the two groups, replying, “The blood of Orangemen shed by Ribbonmen in the streets of New York will cry out against Catholics in every city in the land. They are precipitating the conflict, and we [APA members] are ready to meet them.”24

Beyond being one of the events that is credited with contributing to the downfall of

Tweed’s Tammany Hall, the 1871 riot also affected the Orange Order itself. In accounts of APA parades in the following years, there appears to be a concerted effort on the Association’s part to disassociate itself from the violent image of the Orange Order. Before a Washington’s Birthday parade in the city less than two years later, two or three men within the APA ranks who were sporting Orange badges were asked to leave the parade, “to avoid anything which could produce unpleasantness, and mar the effect of the parade.” However, two of the thirteen lodges represented carried names that specifically referenced Irish Protestant resistance to James II—the Apprentice

Boys and Enniskillen. By this time, the association between Orangemen and nativist parades had become so strong that other groups beyond the APA were painted with an Orange brush. On its way home from the day’s festivities, the Order of the United American Mechanics (whose goals were nativist and not labor oriented, despite its name) obstructed an impatient Irish coachman trying to pass the group in the road. When his attempts to prod the marchers with his horse were rebuffed with shoving, someone shouted “Give it to the Orange _____.” Another riot, although not as large or deadly as those in recent years, followed.25

The connection between the APA and Orangemen continued throughout the 1870s, 1880s, and beyond, and was not limited to New York. When Washington Orange Lodge no. 48 formed in

24 “The New York Riots,” The Pittsburgh Commercial, July 15, 1871. 25 “Washington’s Birthday.” New York Times, Feb 23, 1873.

103

Cleveland in 1873, the Summit County Beacon clarified for those unfamiliar with Orangeism, “The order differs in name only, not principles, from the American Protestant Association.” The same paper later erroneously claimed the APA had been formed in 1849 by former Orangemen.26 Other outlets also assumed a formal connection between the organizations, referring to them interchangeably. When the APA held its annual national conventions in 1885 and 1887, headlines read “American Orangemen’s Convention” and “American Orangemen,” with no other mention of Orangeism in the body of the brief descriptions of the APA meetings.27

Whether the APA and Loyal Orange Institution were formally connected or not, they continued to collaborate through the end of the nineteenth century. They certainly shared broad goals of maintaining social and political power over Catholics in the United States, but some of the events the two orders co-sponsored were linked to events in Ireland. When a delegation of

Ulster Loyalists consisting of Reverend Dr. Richard Rutledge Kane and barrister George Hill

Smith visited Philadelphia in 1886, they were escorted to the packed Academy of Music by “300 prominent Orange and APA members.” The Times estimated that nearly 5,000 “adherents of Irish

Protestantism,” many of them women, were in attendance to hear the delegates’ anti-Home Rule speeches.28 When Philadelphia Orangemen paraded to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne, “copious showers that fell at intervals while the parading societies [including the

APA] were moving did not in the least dampen the true Celtic ardor that characterizes the

Orangemen, and though banners and flags were rain soaked they waved as patriotically as if the

26 Summit County Beacon, February 5, 1873, June 18, 1884. 27 “American Orangemen’s Convention,” The Leavenworth Times, June 11, 1885; “American Orangemen,” Harrisburg Daily Independent, June 9, 1887. 28 “Against Home Rule,” The Times (Philadelphia), October 15, 1886. For more on Kane and Smith’s visit, see Lindsey Flewelling, Two Beyond the Sea: Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018), Chapter 5.

104

summer sun had been shining in all its glory.” During the evening festivities, a letter of regret (for non-attendance) was read by the APA’s Grand Master Wilson.29

By the late 1880s, Orangeism was well-known enough that detractors leveraged its association with the APA against it. In 1887 the national Grand Lodge of the Junior APA adopted a resolution condemning the Pittsburgh school board for appointing a Catholic priest as principal of the Monongahela public school, echoing long-standing concerns among anti-Catholics about protecting schools from Catholic intrusion. “The Catholic Church is secretly and insidiously at work establishing herself in our midst for the destruction of that most notorious privilege, liberty of conscience, which to preserve inviolate should be the purpose of Protestant citizenship and

Protestant Christianity,” they declared. The Wilkes-Barre News, detecting more than a whiff of hypocrisy, replied:

They are evidently unwilling that any should have liberty but themselves…[T]hey combine “Protestant citizenship and Protestant Christianity.” Protestant Christianity means an evangelical alliance against the Pope, and I presume Protestant citizenship, if we are to judge from this protest, means an alliance against Catholic rights. This statement shows that the association drags its religion into its politics, and whenever a Catholic is up for office the association, at the ringing of a little bell, will vote in a body against him. Is this the spirit of American liberty? Is this “liberty of conscience?”…I protest such illiberal sentiments being foisted upon the public as American. About this protest there is a strong flavor of Orangeism. When I was in New York some years ago, I saw parading on Broadway, a long line of men with open bible in front and on their banners; it read: “The American Protestant Association.” These also had pistols in their pockets. They were, and are, Orangemen from Ulster.30 The author of the piece was mobilizing readers’ memories of the deadly New York riots of nearly twenty years before, as well as the APA’s association with the Orange Order, to paint the organization’s arguments as antithetical to American values. According to this description, the

29 “Orangemen’s Great Day,” The Times (Philadelphia), July 13, 1888. 30 “A Bigot Lodge Protests,” The Wilkes-Barre News, October 7, 1887.

105

Junior APA’s membership consisted of “their sons instituted to keep the old Orange hatred from dying out,” and “[t]hey are only transplanted from Ulster and are unamerican in feeling and sentiment.” Further, the News argued, these Orangemen in disguise were traitors who “cover un-

Americanism with their name,” as well as “their notorious to a foreign crown and a preference for the ‘Boyne Water’ to the ‘Star Spangled Banner.’”31 Charges of un-Americanism would continue to follow the American Protestant Association’s predecessor, with Orange connections again serving as ammunition for critics.

The Orange Order and the American Protective Association

As the first APA declined, it was replaced in many ways by a new organization bearing the same initials, the American Protective Association. Initially, the new APA seemed to have no personal or formal connection to the old one, beyond ideology. Formed in Clinton, Iowa, in 1887 by Henry F. Bowers, this APA’s central concern was “ecclesiastical power” in politics. Like previous anti-Catholic organizations, one of its central beliefs was that because the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was controlled from outside the United States, its adherents were not capable of loyal citizenship. In turn, the APA opposed Catholics holding political office. Further, it argued that freedom of religion only existed at the individual level, and that churches did not have a right to educate children. “Non-sectarian” schools were the only acceptable form of education, and the

APA opposed Catholic teachers or administrators in public schools. The APA’s oath also included promises to preserve the “purity of the ballot” (i.e. to vote only for Protestants) and only employ a

Catholic if no Protestants were available.32

31 Ibid. 32 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 36-37, 45-49.

106

The second APA became the most successful anti-Catholic organization of the 1890s, and

Kinzer attributes part of this success to the organization’s active work in collaborating with other like-minded orders.33 As early as 1892, observers in the press reported on the APA’s success in this endeavor, while also questioning the nativity of its membership. Referring to the APA as “the

Know-Nothing organization in the state,” The Daily Review of Illinois published a fantastic report stating there were 23,000 members statewide and they were allied with 6,000 members of the

Junior Order of American Mechanics, 5,000 Patriotic Sons of America, and 15,000 Orangemen.

Using this unrealistically high count of Orangemen to paint the collective as un-American, the

Review wrote, “their objects are practically the same. They are opposed to Catholics holding office and all of them except the Orangemen are as bitterly opposed to foreign born citizens being elected or appointed to public position. These Orangemen are mainly Canadians and cannot of course fight foreigners. Most of them, it is said, still regard Queen Victoria as their rightful sovereign.”34 The

American Citizen of Ironwood, Michigan, echoed the same belief. “[T]he A.P.A. is composed almost entirely of foreigners—of Canadian Orangemen and persons of foreign birth who are even unable to read the . These are nice people to teach native Americans how to be patriotic citizens!”35

Others highlighted the foreign-born element of the new movement while simultaneously recognizing its connection to long-running threads in American anti-Catholicism. More than a few critics traced this line directly back to the Orange Order. A Reverend Jenkins speculated in The

33 Ibid, 58-59. 34 “People Who Boycott Men on Account of Nativity or Religious Faith,” The Daily Review, August 26, 1892. 35 “Silence is Cowardly and Wrong,” The American Citizen (Ironwood, MI), November 11, 1893. The reference to non-English-speakers may refer to the support the APA received from Protestant Scandinavians in Minnesota. Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 73, 113.

107

Catholic World that the new APA was just the old one revamped, lamenting, “It grieves one to be convinced that the title of Orangemen…are attempting to fasten on these ‘Apaists,’ though not strictly demonstrated, is very near the truth.”36 A writer at The Capital Journal, of Salem, Oregon, was more sure of the connection. “A new element cropping up in eastern states. For many years an organization, known to the world as the ‘A.P.A.,’ has been quickly growing and extending to the boundaries and influence from its headquarters in Philadelphia; and it is, not without great show of probability, claimed that its enrolment today, includes a million of men…An offshoot of the order of Orangemen of Great Britain it formerly declared itself as the American Protestant

Association and so it was designated by its weekly and monthly organs in Philadelphia and New

York; but latterly, it appears under the title of the American Protective Association,” a name the author found to be “in the spirit of old-time Know-Nothingism.”37

Only a few months later, the APA was gaining enough strength in the west to attract the press’s attention for its efforts there. Again, the papers linked it to the Orange Order, writing, “Its basic idea is like that of the society of Orangemen…. Those who choose to go into the history of the beginning of similar organizations will find the basic idea in the society of Orangemen or in an organization which flourished and agitated the British mind from 1820 to 1829 known as the

‘3 C’s,’ that is, Catholics, Corn, and Currency.” The Chicago Tribune went on to claim the current incarnation originated in Canada and was merely an offshoot of the Iowa-founded organization.

Even worse, according to the Chicago Sunday Democrat, the organization was conspiring to control jobs in the city. “Nearly every Protestant in employ of any railroad running into Chicago is a member of this order. A great many policeman of this city and employees of the city and

36 “Probable Origin of the A.P.A.,” The Kansas City Catholic, August 17, 1893. 37 “A New Party,” The Capital Journal (Salem, OR), November 7, 1893.

108

county are members, and report at the meetings what is seen and heard by them among the

‘opposition’ as the City Hall and county buildings.”38

Historian John Bach McMaster not only saw parallels to the Know-Nothings, but warned the Republican Party that an alliance with the APA would lead to ruin. Unlike previous nativist organizations, the APA opted to work within the existing political parties, and the Republicans continued to attract anti-immigrant voters after the Civil War, promising to defund sectarian schools.39 McMaster saw “a true revival of the American Protestant Association of 1840 in the

American Protective Association of 1894, with the secret methods of the Know-Nothings thrown in.” The new APA’s goals smacked of “the Orange platform of the APA” to the point it could be mistaken for that of the Know-Nothings who had nominated Millard Fillmore. Fillmore’s failed attempt at regaining the presidency in 1856 under the Know-Nothing banner was a lesson for the

Republicans of the 1890s. Building upon the implications of an “Orange platform,” McMaster argued that in the case of the American Protective Association, “[n]ever was the term ‘American’ more misapplied.” Instead, the APA’s tactics were “wholly foreign,” and belonged to the Star

Chamber and the Bastille, “not the close of the nineteenth century in America.” New York State

Senator O’Connor agreed the party should “clear its skirts of the APA, the Know-Nothings of

1894,” and drove home McMaster’s linking of the APA and troublesome foreigners:

The religious proscriptive agitation begun by the APA has already been fruitful of riot and disorder, and, unless the sturdy common sense of the people check its further spread, the disgraceful battles between the Orangemen and the Ribbonmen, which so long disgraced the North of Ireland, will be as common here as they were in Ulster.40

38 “To Down Romanists,” Chicago Tribune, January 21, 1894. 39 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 8-10, 59. 40 “Republicans’ Heavy Load,” New York Times, July 7, 1894.

109

The Times noted that there had already in fact been such disturbances in Troy, Boston, Kansas

City, and Butte.41

On July 11, 1894, the Times reported on APA efforts on the West Coast to drum up support with vague threats of the “temporal power of the Pope.” The paper quoted an anonymous lawyer who shared the paper’s view of the APA as dangerously silly, saying, “It sounds terrible, that phrase…Old women dread to repeat it even in the dark. Now as a matter of fact the Pope is an amiable old gentleman, who hasn’t got any temporal power at all.”42 The APA had been working to organize in the west for at least a year, and the first San Francisco chapter formed in 1893. In response, Portland residents formed the American Defensive Association to fight the “Orangeism and foreignism” of the APA.43 Now, according to the Times, the APA’s “apostles [were] running up and down scattering firebrands” among “credulous people frightened in absurd apprehensions.”

One APA-spread rumor warned that Catholics were hiding stores of weapons and ammunition in their churches, awaiting orders from the Pope to rise in a “St. Bartholomew’s Day slaughter.”44

The Times laid particular blame on William J.H. Traynor, who had published a phony encyclical, purportedly written by Pope Leo XII, instructing American Catholics to kill all heretics.45 The paper referred to Traynor as “the alien Orangeman who…has done more than any other foreigner ever succeeded doing” to terrorize “thousands of sensible native Americans, who hang upon his utterances and listen to ghost stories as if the Inquisition operating on our own soil and we were getting news of its atrocities hourly by the telephone.”46

41 Ibid. 42 “Victims of Absurd Alarms,” New York Times, July 11, 1894. 43 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 105-107. 44 “Victims of Absurd Alarms,” New York Times, July 11, 1894. 45 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 85. 46 “Victims of Absurd Alarms,” New York Times, July 11, 1894.

110

Traynor was indeed an Orangeman, President of the APA, and foreign-born, and the article was one of several produced by The New York Times in the summer of 1894 that sought to connect the APA to the Orange Order.47 Born in Brantford, Ontario, Traynor came to Detroit in 1867 at the age of twenty-two, and was a member of several organizations, including the Masons, the

Independent Order of Good Templars (a temperance order), and the American Protestant

Association. In Detroit he published The Patriotic American newspaper and was an avid recruiter for the APA after joining in 1891, becoming Supreme Grand Master of the LOI of the USA the same year. Traynor was then elected President of the APA in 1893 and greatly expanded membership by organizing in the west and drawing upon his connections with other “patriotic” societies, attracting recruits who were disappointed with other organizations’ lack of political power.48 Other Orangemen and -women were also active at high levels within the APA. Blanche

E. Reynolds, an Orangewoman, was first president of the Women’s APA, founded in 1891 in

Illinois. The Loyal American, created in 1892 to serve as the APA’s mouthpiece in the Twin Cities, was edited by Orangeman Edward J. Doyle, and in 1894, Supreme Grand Master of the LOI of the

USA, Francis Campbell, was made a trustee of the APA. George Van Fossen, a native of

Pennsylvania and an Orangeman, was active in organizing in Washington State.49

From 1894 to 1896, at the height of the APA’s notoriety, Traynor published several pieces in the North American Review. In them, Traynor responded to criticism of the organization by laying out the APA’s concerns, all of which would have been familiar to Orangemen. He started out by first objecting to the word “Catholic” to describe the Church. Referring to the word’s meaning of “universal,” he noted that the church was not universal at all, and that he preferred the

47 Many thanks to Lindsey Flewelling for alerting me to this. 48 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 59, 73,91-92, 105. 49 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 47, 73, 109, 122; SGL of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1894, OHM.

111

words “papal” and “papacy” instead. Traynor emphasized that he meant no disrespect to Catholics and that he meant his words “not in any sense with a desire to be discourteous or derisive.” Getting to the heart of the APA’s concerns, Traynor asked if the “assumptions of the Papal Church” were consistent with good citizenship. Both the republic and papacy demanded obedience, he argued, pointing to the writings of several Catholic thinkers that placed the power of the Church over any state government. It was this position, Traynor wrote, that made the APA necessary.50

Even more important were the actions of the Church. Traynor accused Catholics of making

“ballot or bullet” threats, as well as refusing to accept deceased soldiers of the Grand Army of the

Republic in Catholic cemeteries until the American flag was removed from their caskets, in accordance with Catholic Church policy. Regarding “[a]rms in Catholic churches, or rumors thereof,” he continued, “is a matter that needs neither confirmation nor refutation. It is sufficient that Papist societies, from which non-Papists are excluded, armed with rifles and bayonets, may be seen upon the public streets at any important Roman Catholic celebration.” Disregarding that such displays might have been in the spirit of military parades or a defense against possible attacks from Orangemen or APA members, Traynor instead pointed again to the designs of the Catholic

Church. Traynor seized upon the use of Thomas Aquinas’ writings on revolution by one critic and responded with his own Aquinas quote, which stated that those who resisted the church “must be delivered over to the secular power to be exterminated.” In the face of such damning evidence, he asked the reader, “In the whole range of history was ever a stronger argument than this submitted as a reason for the existence of an organization for the conservation of American liberty?”51

50 William J.H. Traynor, “The Aims and Methods of the APA,” The North American Review (July 1894), 67-76. 51 Ibid.

112

Traynor later expanded his explanation and referred to several reasons the APA had been formed, each building upon the next. In short, the “spirit” of the Constitution had been violated from various directions, and entire unnamed sections of the national government were complicit.

The nation’s immigration system was such that other “democratic institutions” were weakened, leading to the “immigrant vote, under the direction of certain ecclesiastical institutions,” gaining almost complete control over politics in many places. This immigrant domination, he argued,

“resulted in political prostitution, corruption, and favoritism of the worst kind.”52

The great majority of the American people, while painfully cognizant of the sinister and debasing results of these conditions, and desirous of amending them, were either ignorant of any efficient means of counter-organization, or fearful of the injury to their personal interests at the hands of their powerful and organized opponents.53 The danger was clear, and it called for an organization that could fight for the separation of Church and state for the preservation of American institutions. To do this, the APA worked through existing political structures to not only undo laws that were “subversive” to the Constitution, but to lobby for a new one to strengthen the nation against ecclesiastical control. However, Traynor implored, it was important to understand that the APA only intended to antagonize those who would stand in the way of its goals. It was only because of the Catholic Church’s history of state control that its adherents were the APA’s primary target.54

Satisfied he had made the case for the necessity of the APA, he then addressed other charges that had appeared in recent issues of the Review. First, his own paper, The Patriotic

American, was not on official organ of the APA, as critics claimed. He had himself, however, suggested the creation of such a publication. Second, he denied that the APA had urged the

52 Traynor, “Policy and Power of the APA,” North American Review (June 1896), 658-66. 53 Traynor, “Policy and Power of the APA.” 54 Traynor, “Policy and Power of the APA.”

113

“commercial proscription” of Catholics (it seems that refusing to hire Catholics did not fit his definition of proscription, as this was part of the Association’s oath and constitution). In fact,

Traynor decried such measures as un-American, and attributed the APA’s secrecy to a desire to protect its members from similar retribution. Third, Traynor denied rumors that the APA was itself stockpiling arms, noting that the APA constitution only allowed legal political measures.55

Some critics saw the “Americanism” of the APA as merely a cover for foreigners to make a profit and gain power in numbers. The Journal of Boston reported in July of 1894 on Traynor’s presence in that city for an Orange meeting. “Nearly all the APA organs, which are now fairly boiling over with ‘Americanism,’ so called, were, until the proscriptive movement became a force and a source of profit, Orange organs.” At first, The Journal argued, these papers were open about the role of the Orange Order in their publication, but then this rhetoric was tempered to present the publications as more American. The paper gave the example of The American Citizen, also of

Boston, which had originated as The British-American Citizen. The Journal saw irony in the fact that The American Citizen was fighting “to save this country from damnation by the 10,000,000 or 15,000,000 of Catholics, most of whom were here, helping to make the country rich and great, while the Orangemen were still in Canada or Great Britain fomenting the same sort of strife there in the name of the who disown them that they are fomenting in the name of the

American people.”56

Unitarian minister Reverend Robert Collier agreed the APA was “simply the old Orange movement transplanted from the North of Ireland to the United States of America,” which had

“proved such a prolific cause of riot, trouble, and bloodshed to the decent people of Great Britain.”

Traynor’s motivation to save the US from “popery,” the Times explained, was to cover his

55 Traynor, “Aims and Methods.” 56 Quoted in “Orangemen Are Its Leaders,” New York Times, July 4, 1894.

114

Canadian birth and Orange activities. Anyone who joined the APA was essentially joining an

Orange Lodge, with the only difference found in the name, changed because the average American,

“no matter how bigoted or ignorant, thoroughly detests the Orange idea.” For the unaware, the paper gave a brief history of the Order, beginning in Ireland and Britain, with emphasis on violent episodes like the Prince of Wales’ visit to Canada in 1860 and the New York riots of 1870 and

1871, and declared the Orange Institution “an enemy to the public order.”57

Like the earlier APA, the American Protective Association sponsored “no-popery” lecturers and, as before, former priests who renounced Catholicism were popular. But because they were often foreign-born and made a living from their efforts, they were also easy targets for the press. A Times profile of APA lecturer E.H. Walsh, a former Trappist monk, pointed to the speaker as a prime example of foreigners who insisted that America must be kept “free from foreign control.” Walsh was born in Ireland and had been in the US “for only a few years,” and was publisher of The Primitive Catholic in Brooklyn, where he claimed that the majority of public school teachers were “Romanists” and 75 percent of all offices in New York City were held by

Catholics. The Times was sure to point out that “Walsh gets many profitable engagements from his rhetoric,” echoing previous sentiments that most of the leaders of the movement, in addition to being migrants, were in it for the money.58

One of the Times articles of 1894 included a lengthy interview with George T. Lemmon, prominent Orangeman and future Supreme Grand Master of the LOI of the USA, in which he admitted much of what the press had speculated. After giving the keynote speech at Twelfth celebrations in Brommer’s Park in New York City, he told the Times, “There can be no doubt that the APA is an outgrowth of Orangeism; in fact, its councils are Orange lodges under another name.

57 “Orangemen Are Its Leaders,” New York Times, July 4, 1894. 58 “Foreigners Its Leaders,” New York Times, July 6, 1894.

115

The objects of the two organizations are the same, except that the APA goes further than the

Orange institution in its antagonism to Roman Catholics.”59

The APA movement was started by Orangemen. I make no effort to conceal that. It needs no concealment. Its leading members and most active workers today are Orangemen. Traynor, the Supreme Grand President of the APA is a Past Supreme Grand Master of the Loyal Orange Institution. The ideas that govern the APA are the ideas that govern the Orange movement.60 When asked why the two organizations needed separate names if they were the same, Lemmon replied, “Because, American citizens, it was found, would not join the Orange lodges…They did not understand them…[I]t became necessary to give it a new name, one that would enlist the support of the mass of American people. So, Mr. Traynor and the other promoters of the APA hit upon its present name, and the movement swept, as you have seen, all over the country.” Whether or not Lemmon’s narrative is accurate, he clearly meant to credit the Orange Order with originating the anti-Catholic movement, implying that it essentially co-opted the nascent APA to use it as a vehicle to reach more Americans. Expanding upon the lengths to which the APA exceeded the

Orange Order in its antagonization of Catholics, Lemmon admitted he was not initially comfortable with the part of the oath that prohibited employing Catholics, but he was persuaded it was necessary. Getting to the heart of concerns over the alleged foreign nature of the APA, the reporter asked if the Orange oath conflicted with the taker’s allegiance to the United States. “The

Orange oath binds the taker loyally to support the institutions of this country as long as the

Government remains Protestant. That, I suppose, smacks somewhat of bigotry, but as there is no chance, as far as I can see, of The Government’s passing into the control of the Catholics, it doesn’t signify,” he replied. When pressed further with the hypothetical of a Catholic being elected

59 “Only Orangeism Disguised,” New York Times, July 13, 1894. 60 Ibid.

116

President, Lemmon conceded the idea had never occurred to him because he saw it as improbable.61

Lemmon also made bold claims about the APA’s political power in the state. The

Association claimed 100,000 members at the time and worked closely with the Republican Party, which spoke to several concerns of APA members. “I myself am a Prohibitionist, and when I joined the order I told the members that I was doing it with my eyes open to the fact that it was a

Republican annex…There is no doubt about the affiliation between the Republican Party and the order, and I don’t think any particular effort has been made to conceal this affiliation.”

Furthermore, Lemmon presented the APA not as subservient to the party, but as a powerful influencer, claiming that the APA’s County Advisory Boards regularly went to Republican politicians with their demands and that “you can rest assured that they generally get pretty nearly what they ask.”62 Lemmon knew he would have a large audience, and was happy to tout—and possibly exaggerate—the APA’s power with the Republican Party in an effort to attract more members, while adding prestige to the Orange Order by crediting it with spearheading the current anti-Catholic movement. The Democratic Party had for decades served as an important institution for Irish-Catholic immigrants, and this association made the Republican Party a foil that appealed to nativist sentiments.63

The Kansas City Catholic seized upon the problem of oath-bound societies and loyalty to the nation, writing that the “inherent lawlessness” of the APA had not gotten the attention it deserved. Besides the “ruffianly sentiment” behind the organization’s tactics and rhetoric, The

61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Kerby A. Miller, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (Oxford University Press, 1988), 329-331; James R. Barrett, The Irish Way: Becoming American in the Multiethnic City (London: Viking Press,2014), Chapter 5.

117

Catholic saw restricting fellow citizens, in either private or public life, based on their religion as a violation of the law, and argued that anyone who took the oath immediately became a criminal.

The connection to the Loyal Orange Institution was again summoned as an example of the slippery slope down which America might slide if the APA were tolerated:

One can form an idea of the essential lawlessness of the APA by observing the doings in Ireland of the Orange Association, upon which the APA has been modeled…Now at a meeting of the English Grand Lodge of Orangemen held in London the other day (July 25th)…Major Saunderson, MP, spoke frankly of the unwillingness of Orangemen to submit to laws framed by a Parliament in which Catholics should enjoy a fair share of the legislature power. “The Orangemen had been accused of being revolutionists in saying that under certain circumstances they will resist the law.” All depended, he said, upon who made the law.

Saunderson defended this position by arguing that an independent Ireland would be “hostile to the religious freedom of Orangemen.” Unsurprisingly, the Catholic paper found this distressing, and tried to convey its view of the Orangemen as disloyal and dangerous threats to the republic.

“Orangemen do not intend to obey any laws not in harmony with the spirit of fanaticism. And that too is the desire, if not the intention, of the APA.” Invoking another bogeyman occupying collective fears, The Catholic added:

It would be difficult to determine which is the worst enemy of American institutions, the soured and envious hater of other’s prosperity who denounces all laws, or the morbid anti-Catholic fanatic who threatens to obey the laws only so far as they conform to this narrow prejudice. Both Anarchists and “Apaists” are criminals in intent; the difference between the two is a difference of degree, not of kind.64

Patrick Ford, of The Irish World, agreed with The Catholic’s characterization of the APA as treacherous. “Benedict Arnold, that distinguished American ‘patriot’ of a century ago, was a

64 “The Lawlessness of Anti-Catholic Tolerance,” The Kansas City Catholic, August 16, 1894.

118

good APA man,” he wrote. Furthermore, he opined that the APA would have even boycotted

Washington, who saw no reason Catholics could not be good American citizens. In fact, Ford argued, had the American Revolution failed, the APA’s “would be where they belong, in the camp of the Orangemen, for in reality the APA is merely an auxiliary to the Orange lodges, nothing more and nothing less.” Ford went on to say that were it not for Orangemen, there would be peace in

Ireland, as “[t]he great body of Irish Protestants despise the Orangeman, of whom the APA is a worthy offspring.” He ended by lamenting, “How pitiful and small and cowardly it is, therefore, to try to stir up the old Orange spirit, the Orange hatred, here, where the people are getting along so well together under the broad liberality of our institutions.”65

Only a week before Francis Campbell had proposed immigration restriction to the Supreme

Grand Lodge of the USA, APA orator Dr. John Quincy Adams Henry spoke to an assemblage of

Orange and women men and “APA’s” in an effort to mobilize political action. The Women’s APA was the primary sponsor of the event, and Henry flattered them while underscoring their importance to the cause. “For women I have the greatest respect. It has been said that one woman is equal to seven and a half men. One of the reasons why I wish women to vote is that they will help to solve many of the questions that vex us today.” Henry also appealed to the assembly’s ethno-religious sensibilities. Before describing abysmal statistics about increasing numbers of

Irish migrants, who were the “hardest to assimilate,” he made it clear he understood the distinction between Protestant and Catholic Irish. “I am glad to be here under the auspices of the

Orangemen…The north of Ireland is one of the most useful parts of the world, but the south—just let me tell you a little story.” The speaker followed with a “joke” illustrating the alleged inferiority of Catholic souls, but he went on to lay out a more serious prospect for the audience. “Protestantism

65 “APA’s Loss From Youth,” New York Times, July 1, 1894.

119

in America has reached its crisis; that before it lies the battle of Armageddon…Americans are to determine the destiny and career of the Anglo-Saxon race. The American today stands in the midst of immortal issues; he stands at the conflux of eternity.”66

The Orange Order and the Decline of the American Protective Association

Tension over the APA’s much-maligned connection to the Orange Order also existed between its own native and foreign-born elements. As a “patriotic order” that intervened into national political debates over immigration restriction and the influence of a foreign power in

American democratic institutions, the APA could not afford to be portrayed as a hypocritical movement teeming with immigrants, no matter how patriotic they might be. Both native-born APA members and foreign-born Orangemen understood being Protestant as central to American identity. They viewed any erosion of Protestant privilege—such as allowing Catholics to read their own Bible in school, in lieu of the King James version—as an attack on their constitutional rights and a violation of the separation of Church and State. By this internal logic, foreign-born

Protestants could be valuable citizens, if they were sufficiently patriotic and worked to maintain

Protestant hegemony. But migration to America from Catholic countries, especially Ireland, had a long enough history by the 1890s that Protestant Americans had lost control over many of the nation’s largest cities, and they could no longer claim to represent “true” Americanism without significant opposition. The presence of so many migrants within the ranks of the APA further eroded its credibility among native-born Protestants who did not share the organization’s fears.

Many within the APA recognized this, and it would become a point of contention that added further pressure to the organization amid mounting obstacles to its survival.

66 “The Perils of Protestantism,” The San Francisco Call, June 2, 1896.

120

By the time Francis Campbell made his appeals to fellow Orangemen at the Supreme

Grand Lodge and John Q.A. Henry implored more of them to join the American Protective

Association, the organization was already in rapid decline. In fact, both moments are examples of the APA’s dwindling power, early signs of which appeared after its failure to deliver votes in the

1894 elections.67 In 1895, the Executive Council took steps to amalgamate the APA and its northern counterpart, the Canadian Protective Association, under the leadership of Traynor. This would have undermined the patriotic nature of the collective for many members, although the choice of Fort Worth, Texas, judge J.H. Jackson as Supreme Vice President was probably meant to mitigate this while simultaneously expanding the APA in the South.68 Three months later, a

Chelsea, Massachusetts, man named Hudson explained to a Boston paper why he had left the APA, despite his prominent state-level position. Repeating many of the outside criticisms leveled before,

Hudson said patriotism had given way to “pitching into the Roman Catholic Church,” and that he did not believe in “bringing Old World quarrels over here to this country.” William of Orange meant no more to him than St. Patrick, Orange no more than Green.

I only look up to one emblem, and that is the Stars and Stripes…This patriotic order should not be something to give alien-born residents of the country an excuse to engage in religious fights…The “Little Red Schoolhouse” was used so as to obtain the sympathy of native Americans in case there was trouble…The Orangemen are always looking for a fight with a Catholic, and vice versa. There are Orangemen in the APA, I am sorry to say, and they are never satisfied until they have a chance to get a crack at some Irish Catholic’s head.

67 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 85; Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 219. 68 “An International APA is Probable,” New York Times, May 11, 1895.

121

Mr. Hudson especially disliked having Traynor as head of the APA because of both his foreign birth and high status within the Orange Order. Instead, he argued, the APA should be led by

“Americans who do not place their religious prejudices above their patriotism.”69

Some of Hudson’s remarks about the religious prejudices of the APA are surprising, given that antagonization of Catholics was the organization’s primary focus. In this respect it is clear that

Hudson’s expectations and those of the organization were not aligned, but his attitude does confirm one of the major reasons Higham found for the decline of the APA: as the country was becoming increasingly secular, anti-Catholic nativism was becoming less fashionable, and Irish migrants were diminishing as a percentage of the overall population. As other nativist groups shifted their attention toward increasing numbers of migrants from Eastern Europe, beating up on Irish

Catholics came to seem old-fashioned.70 The National Council of Patriotic Orders’ meeting was an annual event that included dozens of representatives from various organizations, but the 1895 meeting that delivered its platform to the Orange Institution via Francis Campbell was sparsely attended. Only the APA, the United Order of American Mechanics, the Junior Mechanics, and the

Orangemen attended. Internal battles also limited the APA’s ability to effectively mobilize. In

March of 1896, the APA Executive Committee met to settle on an endorsement for President.

Many APA members would not support McKinley, despite almost unanimous support for the

Republican Party in the past, because he had not sufficiently flattered the organization and had appointed Catholics to government positions while governor of Ohio. They instead favored

Populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan, and the APA nearly split over the issue.71

69 “APA an Orange Society,” New York Times, August 18, 1895. 70 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 86-87. 71 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, 213-219, 223.

122

In what reads like a postmortem, Traynor attempted to explain away some of plaguing the APA in 1896 by describing the host of obstacles set before the organization throughout its career. His explanations were contradictory in many ways, as Traynor tried to walk a fine line between speaking to his core followers and avoiding alienating the rest of the public.

Responding to the order’s reputation for bigotry, Traynor claimed that the Association was not opposed to individuals based upon their religion, nor was it organized to oppose dogma or to

“direct, dissect, maintain, or destroy theology.” He did admit that many individuals within the organization acted in a way that would give the opposite impression. However, he assured readers,

“Though cranks and bigots may combine and cause indefinite mischief locally for a short time, they do not affect an entire nation nor leave their imprint upon national politics and legislation in the degree which the APA has done in its brief existence.” To maintain its power, Traynor recognized the importance of maintaining a certain level of respectability. Vaguely identified trouble-makers should not be taken to be representative of the APA. Denying that the Association was a “side issue” created by the Orange Order, Traynor stated that only one founder had been an

Orangeman and claimed that most members were native-born.72

Providing cover for Orangeism to fill its ranks was not necessary, Traynor added, as the

APA’s rapid growth occurred because the organization’s goals and rhetoric were so in tune with the mindset of the American public.73 Previous historians have essentially agreed with this assessment, arguing that the APA did not create the sentiments it espoused, but merely seized upon a heightened sense of anti-Catholic sentiment in the US.74 Membership exploded after the elections of 1893, but, according to Traynor, attacks from the press turned public sentiment against the APA,

72 Traynor, “Policy and Power of the APA.” 73 Ibid. 74 Kinzer, An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, v, 345-35.

123

and many members were boycotted in their towns. While the APA claimed “many political victories,” these were not always apparent because politicians were reluctant to reveal their sympathies with and support from the organization. Most of these politicians were Republicans,

Prohibitionists, or Populists, with a few “occasionally worthy Democrats.” While the APA had desperately been working to gain traction in the South, the association of Democrats with the

“immigrant vote” in the North proved to be an impediment. Many politicians had left Traynor and other APA members feeling betrayed and believing that they had pandered to the organization to get votes, only to repudiate them after election. Those who were still in Congress, Traynor bemoaned, were “some of the least reliable members of the order.”75

The APA had, since its inception, stuck to working within the existing political parties, throwing its support behind the least offensive candidates in elections from the local to the national levels, but this tactic was no longer getting the desired results. Because officials supported as “APA candidates” were elected as members of established political parties, this meant they were “serving two masters, one promising material, the other, moral punishments.” Traynor posited that perhaps it had been a mistake to support candidates unless they had pledged themselves to the principals of the APA. This, he felt, had contributed to the recent split within the order over the question of endorsing McKinley, as well as a misconception both outside and within the APA that its job was to dictate how members voted. The job of the APA was to work for its members, not the other way around. But the Association still claimed 2.5 million members “who influence 4 million votes,” according to Traynor, leading him to threaten the solution the NCPO had already pushed, with the support of Orange Order leadership:

Finally it should not be forgotten that ninety-five percent of the members of the order are Americans first, APA’s next, and elements of party last of all; and that,

75 Traynor, “Policy and Power of the APA.”

124

should the old parties refuse to publicly recognize and endorse the essential principles of the order, an independent Presidential candidate is not only a possibility but an absolute certainty, even though such a course should lead to the defeat of the dominant political party and the organization itself.76

Whether or not Traynor genuinely thought fielding a third party was wise, the explicit consequence of serving as a “spoiler” that would likely damage the chances of the Republican Party was clear.

The leadership of the APA felt the Republican Party, which they at times had claimed control of, was abandoning them. While its claims of control were exaggerated, almost all the APA’s success had been in conjunction with the Republicans. But it was clear the party no longer saw the APA as a worthwhile source of votes, and Traynor overestimated what was left of his organization’s power. The 1896 Republican Party platform included no reference to public schools, the APA’s pet issue, and within only a few short years the Association had virtually disappeared.

Conclusion

References to the Orange Order first appeared in the United States roughly a quarter century after the Order’s foundation in Ireland at the end of the eighteenth century. As more and more Irish, especially Catholic Irish, began to migrate to the US, Protestant Irishmen sought to maintain the fraternal organization they brought with them, while at the same time attempting to distinguish themselves from their much-maligned Catholic countrymen. To achieve these goals,

Orangemen joined anti-Catholic nativist groups like the American Protestant Association and, later, the American Protective Association. Through their membership and involvement in these groups’ public performances like parades, they drew attention away from possible negative attributes of their foreignness, instead highlighting positive attributes such as their devout

76 Ibid.

125

Protestantism and American patriotism. They also, through active engagement and even leadership in nativist organizations, contributed to the discourse equating Protestantism with nationalism.

American Orangemen’s peculiar method of carving out and maintaining their place within the social hierarchy was possible because of a particular context. In the mid- and late-nineteenth century United States, Anglo Protestants enjoyed a higher level of privilege than Irish Catholics.

Because the atmosphere was hostile towards Catholicism in general, Irish Protestant migrants, their families, and their allies found many familiar attitudes they could latch onto and exploit for their own benefit. Public displays such as parading, which Orangemen had long held among their traditions, were a perfect way to assert their dominance over Catholics and their allegiance to a pan-Protestant social order. The creation of this social order was a transnational project that involved partners from across the English-speaking world, allowing native-born Americans,

Canadian-Americans, and Irish-born Protestants to contribute toward a common goal of fighting a shared enemy. As John Wolffe has argued, “the culture of Irish Protestantism could merge almost imperceptibly into that of American patriotism, with a fairly direct transfer of Irish sectarian rivalries on to American soil.”77 Irish Protestant modes of ethnic expression were adapted to fit specific contingencies as Orangemen and -women attempted to contribute to the national dialogue concerning what it meant to be a political participant in the republic. While much of the press was critical of the connections between Orangeism and nativist organizations, and Orangemen were often blamed for their bigotry, their rhetoric still found a receptive audience among Americans who shared a set of anti-Catholic traditions.

When Orangemen filled the ranks of the American Protective Association, they used it as political outlet in ways that the Orange Order’s transnational nature precluded. As many of them

77 Wolffe, “Transatlantic Perspective,” 303.

126

were leaders of the APA, they unquestionably contributed to the Association’s goals and tactics and provided some of its most notable spokesmen. Orangemen also facilitated the APA’s efforts to build a pan-Protestant alliance within the framework of “patriotic orders.” Many of the coalition’s political aims echoed those of the Orange Order, while others represented new extremes of nativism, including calls for immigration restriction and the creation of an independent political party. But the APA’s successes were limited, and they failed to keep up with changing currents in nativist sentiment among Americans. The Orange Order would continue to collaborate with other anti-Catholic groups, as an organization and individuals, into the twentieth century, but never at the same level as before.

127

Chapter 4 “Readers and Friends”: Maintaining Community Through The Purple Bell

In 1920, General Garfield Loyal Orange Lodge no. 124 of Chelsea, Massachusetts honored its twenty-sixth anniversary with a celebration that included a wide variety of entertainments, all performed by Orangemen and -women. Marion Russell did the Highland Fling, a Scottish solo dance popular today in Highland Games competitions, and four young Orangewomen sang

“Newfoundland Hero,” a ballad recounting the heroics of William Jackman, a sealing captain who rescued the passengers of a shipwreck off Labrador in 1867.1 A band performed “Onward Christian

Soldier,” followed by a reading of a selection on the Battle of the Boyne by a Miss Jaynes.

Reverend E. Roy Myers, of Mount Bellingham Methodist Episcopal Church, spoke on

“Protestantism today,” and its relationship to “Irish propaganda.” Next, the gathering heard a report from William C. Carafa, of the Lodge’s Naturalization Committee, who was “doing great work in seeing that all foreign born are naturalized as soon as possible.” His talk immediately preceded another performance by the band, this time of “America.”2

This single Orange fete offers examples of nearly everything the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA represented. Marion Russell’s Highland Fling and the singing of a Newfoundland folk song reflected the nature of the Order as a transnational community that maintained and celebrated cultural elements from multiple nation-states. The Fling is also indicative of at least some

1 Orange and Purple Courier, February-March 1920, D0462-M98-13, Box 2, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA (Hereafter cited as HSP); “Biography – Jackman, William – Volume X (1871-1880) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography,” accessed September 19, 2018, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=5060; Shannon Ryan and Larry Small, Haulin’ Rope & Gaff: Songs and Poetry in the History of the Newfoundland Seal Fishery (St. John's, Newfoundland: Breakwater Books, 1978). 2 Orange and Purple Courier, February-March 1920, HSP.

128

members’ adherence to a specific idea of a Scots-Irish ethnicity, which had gained currency in the late nineteenth century. Highlighting many Irish Protestants’ Scottish roots to distinguish themselves from Catholic Irish, it simultaneously positioned members of the group as inheritors of the colonial group’s patriotic credentials.3 Promoting patriotism to one’s adopted home—in this case, the United States—was important, and was signaled most clearly by the Lodge’s efforts to naturalize its foreign-born members (a universal goal within the American Orange Order) and the closing performance of “America.” Protestant identity was the bridge that allowed Orangemen to travel from foreigner to patriot. For many Protestants of , Protestantism and patriotism were inextricable. It was this thread that allowed Carafa, the son of Italian migrants, to lead a campaign to naturalize Irish and Canadian-born migrants to US citizenship. The lessons of the Boyne and the message of “Onward Christian Soldier,” were perhaps the most key elements, as they framed the rest of the ideas expressed at the celebration within the context of opposition to

Irish nationalism.

Orangemen and -women disseminated these lessons and other important information necessary for the maintenance of a diasporic community. While most Orangemen would never meet their international (or even national) brethren, they were able to read about each other’s exploits, exchange ideas, and even communicate morals and adherence to them through the press.4

In this way, American Orangemen and -women followed the example of their brethren and sisters

3 Thomas N. Brown, Irish-American Nationalism 1870-1890, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1966). 4 Benedict Anderson most famously explored this phenomenon in Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006). For the Orange Order in England, see Donald M. MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting: The Orange Order and Irish Migrants in Northern England, 1850-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 51, 143-144, 286-320. For recent work the Irish Catholic press and the construction of transnational identity see Cian T. McMahon, The Global Dimensions of Irish Identity: Race, Nation, and the Popular Press, 1840-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015).

129

throughout the Atlantic. The Orange and Protestant Banner informed Orangemen in the 1850s and 1860s from its base in Northern England, after which the Belfast Weekly News became the

Order’s favorite conduit. Two Orange papers, the Purple Bell and the Orange and Purple Courier,5 at different times served as official organs of the American Orange Order. While they were not concurrent, they shared many of the same themes and topics. Both publications stressed the LOI’s role as a patriotic order, with both direct advice, and biographical examples of, the intersection of patriotism and Protestantism. The editors of each publication also solicited news from individual lodges, allowing them to report events like General Garfield no. 124’s anniversary party to the wider Orange world. The Purple Bell and Orange and Purple Courier also carried polemical pieces, religious tracts, and reprints of newsworthy items on an extensive scope of topics beyond those specific to Orangeism. National politics and America’s role in the world sat alongside refutations of Irish nationalist perspectives and Catholic doctrines. More so than the Courier, the

Purple Bell provided readers with recreational reading material, such as poetry and fiction, much of it produced by the women of the Orange Order. But both catered, to different degrees, to a specific community with shared values and a sense of history that revolved around Irish Protestant politics.

The Purple Bell was the earliest American Orange publication that has survived for posterity and first appeared in January of 1899. It was essentially a rebranding of its predecessor,

Orange Blossoms, which had “a fixed determination to loyally support the Patriotic Order its name suggested.” Orange Blossoms ran for two years from August 1896 and “took a vacation” before returning as the Purple Bell. The publishers assured readers that the magazine would not be local in its “patriotic news, but INTERNATIONAL,” with “articles of merit from the OLD WORLD, as

5 The Orange and Purple Courier provides much of the source material for the following chapter and will receive attention there. This chapter will focus on the issues presented in the Purple Bell.

130

well as Canada and the provinces.” They also admitted the name itself was esoteric, with “no particular meaning to those not acquainted with its antecedents,” purple referring to a degree one could achieve in the Masonic-based system of the Order. Others would be fully aware of its meaning, and the publishers believed that between the two, “there is a field which such a publication can occupy…We expect that it will make friends.” The publication counted on subscribers to introduce it to potential new “friends,” and implored readers to put forth their best efforts in this cause. In addition to reporting on the Order in the US and Canada, the magazine also promised to cover questions of the utmost importance to the republic, with hopes to provide

“descriptive pen pictures” from across the sea.

In fact, our plan is to bring forth intelligent thought that will promote the interests of patriotism and bind together in oneness of purpose hundreds of thousands, now widely separated. We hope to touch the generous spirit of the Brotherhood, and thereby deepen the fraternal element.6 Like other papers that worked to maintain a transnational ethnic identity, the Purple Bell existed to impart a sense of community between widely dispersed “brethren” and “sisters” who, for the most part, had never personally met.

Patriotism and the Protestant “Race”

As before, the American Orange Order found it necessary to assure those outside the Purple

Bell’s target audience that it was a fully patriotic order. “There are those everywhere about us who think that the Orange Order is a foreign organization, or an organization composed entirely of foreigners,” it lamented, while asserting that the Order stood as “a preeminently patriotic institution,” whose primary focus was the four intertwined goals of furthering “Protestant religious

6 “Transformation,” “Salutory” [sic], Purple Bell (January 1899), 7, 8, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA (Hereafter cited as LOC).

131

freedom,” maintaining the public school system, direct instruction from the [King James] Bible, and defense of [American] national institutions. The magazine, its editors wrote, was a tool for each of these tasks and a friend to “every man that seeks the elevation of the race and the destruction of ecclesiastical domination.”7 The “race” to which the Purple Bell referred was that of the Anglo-Saxon. During nationalist movements of the early nineteenth century, Ireland had seen a revival of “Celticism” that placed Catholics and Protestants into broad but flexible categories of “Celts” and “Saxons.”8 American nativists had held that Anglo-Saxons were the source of the spirit of American independence since at least the mid-nineteenth century, and the emphasis on the ties between race and nationality became more prominent throughout the 1890s.9

The “Anglo-Saxon myth” had existed in England for centuries by the dawn of the 1890s, but its proponents increasingly weaponized the idea in support of global domination in the nineteenth century.10 Orangemen in Britain and Ireland included themselves in this during Home Rule crises of the late nineteenth century to distinguish themselves from Irish-Catholics,11 and American

Orangemen found a new and fertile context for Anglo-Saxonism in the expanding American empire.

The Purple Bell seized upon the Order’s connection with perceived Anglo-Saxon virtues, and its inaugural article—which spanned two issues—was penned by Baptist minister and

7 “A Mistaken Notion,” Purple Bell (February 1899), 30, LOC. 8 McMahon, The Global Dimensions of Irish Identity, Chapter 1, especially 11-12. 9 John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1963), 95–96. 10 Reginald Horsman, “Origins of Racial Anglo-Saxonism in Great Britain before 1850,” Journal of the History of Ideas 37, no. 3 (1976): 387–410; L. P. Curtis, Jr., Anglo-Saxons and Celts: A Study of Anti- Irish Prejudice in Victorian England (Bridgeport, CT: Conference on British studies at the University of Bridgeport, 1968). 11 Donald M. MacRaild, “‘Principle, Party, and Protest’: The Language of Victorian Orangeism in the North of England,” in The Victorians and Race, ed. Shearer West, (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1996), 128- 140.

132

M.L. Streeter and gave a detailed history of the “Champions of Freedom.” The piece had originally been delivered to the July 12 gathering of Traynor Lodge of Denver, Colorado, and tied the Orangeman’s crusade to racial destiny.

The spirit of liberty, the source of the manly and the heroic, has been a distinguishing trait of the people of the Saxon race in all the ages of their history. The ancient Saxons were the proud champions of personal freedom; the modern Saxons are the benign champions of constitutional liberty. The free spirit of the race has been essentially the same in all ages and in all climes. But who were these “valiant defenders of personal freedom and civil and religious liberty?” the author asked. Recent global events, especially the Spanish-American War, begged the question as international turmoil reshaped the world political order with America’s expanding imperialism.

These “signs of the times and present manifest destiny” indicated to Streeter that the Anglo-Saxon race was to be the inheritor of the world, and rightly so because it was the worthiest candidate. The

“home-loving, liberty-loving, and courageous Saxons” would carry their democratic and

Protestant principles throughout the newly-controlled territories, much to the benefit of the inhabitants there.12

To understand the how the Saxon’s virtues were acquired, Streeter dug back into ancient lore. Citing the Völuspá, the creation story of Norse mythology, he noted the “wild freemen of the

North” and their pantheon of gods, called the Aesir, which he translated as “Princes of God.”

Arguing that “Israel” translated in the same way, Streeter began his long, winding, and far-fetched string of evidence that the Saxons were one of the ten lost tribes of Israel. “As ‘princes of God,’ or ISRAEL, they were turned out of their houses, lands, and estates…without their family Bible containing their pedigree.” They migrated North, keeping the name Aesir, which was retained longest by the Goths. Originally, those Gothic ancestors recorded twelve princes of the Aesir, of

12 M.L. Streeter, “The Champions of Freedom,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 1, LOC.

133

whom Odin was All-Father. “When God, whose name in Hebrew is El, cast out the people of

Israel, they gradually dropped from their name of God, and thus Israel became the Isr or Aesr.”

Additional proof could be found in their most venerated song, “The Vala Song of Liberty” which indicated they were “the outcast house of Israel.”13

Streeter culled much of his information from Sharon Turner’s History of the Anglo-Saxons

(1799-1805), which Turner had written in the context of British responses to the French

Revolution, lionizing the Saxons in contrast to Norman “tyrants.”14 Turner traced the Anglo-

Saxons from Britain, back through Europe, to “Sacasena,” an ancient region of Scythia that allegedly provided the etymology of “Saxon.” These “Sacae,” Streeter wrote, “were the pioneers of freedom,” who could be found in modern times in German-speaking regions, Britain, and the

United States, where, as prophesized, “they have filled up the desolate heritages of the earth and are filling the face of the world with fruit.” Their love of freedom, defiance of tyranny, and reverence for the Almighty was first exhibited when Darius of Persia attempted to subjugate them, and could be traced forward to Patrick Henry, whose dichotomy of liberty or death was the echo of “the eternal sentiment of the race as voiced by the Scythian king.” The world had only the

Saxons to thank for “national and personal freedom,” as even the Greeks, with their numerous contributions to western society in the spheres of culture and governance, “frequently were the willing slaves of haughty despots.”15

Streeter connected the ancient struggle for liberty to modern religious struggles, painting

Protestantism as simply a new chapter in the saga. He claimed Britain was Hebrew for “Island of

13 Ibid. 14 “Turner, Sharon (1768–1847), Historian,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, accessed September 20, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/27866; Donna Beth Ellard, “Ella’s Bloody Eagle: Sharon Turner’s History of the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon History,” Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies 5, no. 2 (June 1, 2014): 215–234. 15 Streeter, “The Champions of Freedom,” 3-4.

134

the Covenant,” making it the land promised to Israel by God. It was this that protected England from the attacks by both the Spanish Armada and Napoleon. If the implication was not clear enough, Streeter made explicit the ties between Protestantism and race. Pointing out that Martin

Luther himself was a Saxon and the “personal embodiment of the inborn heroism of the Saxon race,” he proclaimed, “The great was as much a revolt of the Germanic race against the intolerable tyranny of Rome, as it was a religious revival.” Further evidence of this could be seen, as Streeter presented it, in the struggles of William the Silent (progenitor of William of

Orange) in his struggle against Catholic Spain in the Netherlands, of Cromwell in England, of

William of Orange on the continent and in the British Isles, and of Washington and Lincoln in

America, all of whom were “heroes of God and champions of freedom, each in his turn, preparing the way for the approaching jubilee of ages.”16

The recent war with Spain, for militant Protestants, was a continuation of this historic struggle. Americans, as the inheritors of Anglo-Saxon fighting prowess, reminded Englishmen of

“the best traditions of Anglo-Saxon navies” under Admiral Sampson. Streeter compared the divine support behind America to that of William of Orange’s landing in 1688, repeating the mythology constructed around the fateful date.17 Much like the Spanish Armada one hundred years before, the enemies of Protestantism were thwarted by providentially bad weather. In addition to God’s blessing, William brought with him “representatives of the whole Protestant world,” including

Dutch, Swedish, and Huguenot soldiers, as well as English and Scottish soldiers who had gone to the continent to fight against Spain and stayed under William’s command. When the forces of

16 Streeter, “The Champions of Freedom,” 4-6. 17 James Richard Redmond McConnel, “The 1688 Landing of William of Orange at Torbay: Numerical Dates and Temporal Understanding in Early Modern England,” The Journal of Modern History 84, no. 3 (2012): 539–71.

135

James II and William III met in Ireland in 1690, the “Englishry of Ireland” and the Huguenots of

France were especially motivated in the campaign because of previous persecutions—perceived and real—for their Protestantism.18

While Orangemen and other anti-Catholics repeatedly assured observers that their quarrel was with the church in Rome, not its individual adherents, they simultaneously portrayed Irish

Catholics as a race biblically ordained to be enemies of all Protestants. Drawing upon Turner once again, Streeter fantastically claimed the Protestants of the north of Ireland were direct descendants of the “Israelites of the Dispersion from Dan and Bethel,” while Catholics in the south descended from Canaanites and Philistines. “The Philistines of sacred history are the Phoenicians of secular history. The modern Fenians get their name as well as their descent from the ancient Phoenicians.

The harp of Erin, so famous in story and song, was originally the harp of David, transferred by the king’s daughter in her flight to the Islands of the West.” Proof of the Orangemen’s biblical lineage, he noted, could be found in the name of the Loyal Orange Institution’s highest order, the Royal

Black Knights of the Camp of Israel, a separate order that one could only join after ascending through the highest ranks of the Orange Order. The challenge of bringing newly-acquired territories into the Protestant fold was another important chapter in “the same old conflict” of Israel with the Philistines. Just over two hundred years before, God had decided the issue “in favor of truth and liberty, in favor of England and Protestantism, in favor of a free nation and a free church, in favor of the heroic people of the elect race of freemen, the champions of freedom in all the ages.” Streeter predicted the “jubilee of ages” was nigh, when “our modern Saxon Israel will proclaim liberty throughout all the earth, to all the inhabitants thereof.”19

18 Streeter, “The Champions of Freedom,” 20-23. 19 Ibid, 23-24.

136

The Purple Bell easily found agreement across the Atlantic regarding the historical and racial connections between Anglo-Saxons and American values. The magazine reprinted complaints from Conservative House Leader, Arthur Balfour, that continental nations had a difficult time understanding Britain, unlike America, “which by community of language, religion, blood, origin, and even institutions, is well fitted to understand us.” This point was demonstrated, according to Balfour, by a recent unity and “marvelous change” in relations in response to war with Catholic Spain, despite tensions over Venezuela between Britain and the US only three years earlier. While cynics portrayed the warming of Anglo-American relations as delicate, Balfour assured them that “the time would come when all speaking the English language and sharing the

Anglo-Saxon civilization would be united with a sympathy which no mere political divergencies could permanently disturb.”20 Balfour and American Orangemen and - women agreed that because

Britain and America were of the same Anglo-Saxon stock and shared the values that heritage entailed, they were certain the two nations were destined to be allies in the global fight for

Protestant notions of liberty and freedom.

As representatives of the race meant to spread liberty across the globe, members of the

Orange Order insisted this made them some of the most patriotic Americans, as their destiny was shared with the United States as a nation. In the February 1899 issue of the Purple Bell, editor C.C.

Phelan included the text of a speech he delivered a month before at the People’s Temple in Boston, as part of a weekly series of patriotic talks sponsored by the Order. Phelan presented Protestantism, industriousness, intelligence, and patriotism as inextricably linked. The industriousness and intelligence that turned pig iron into profitable goods like horseshoes, jack-knives, and watch springs were gifts that Americans were duty-bound to share with the rest of the world. These gifts

20 “Sir Arthur Balfour Speaks of Anglo-American Entente,” Purple Bell (February 1899), 51, LOC.

137

had “lifted the brow of the white man, as giving freedom to the negro has lifted his instep,” while

“the Irish peasantry’s forehead was lowered an inch because of tyranny and ignorance.” Freedom and education were behind this, allowing a child born in a log cabin to become “our high-browed freeman, Abraham Lincoln.” The same qualities that bred this diligence were also, not coincidentally, to be found in America’s patriots, and patriotism was defined in part by one’s willingness to spread Protestant capitalist values to those not lucky enough to already enjoy them.

Franklin Pierce had demonstrated patriotism first as a soldier in the Mexican-American War and later in his attempts to acquire Cuba and open Japan to western trade as president. The patriotism of William of Orange was also remembered, along with that of Cromwell, Washington, and

Grant.21

Patriots need not look only to the past for shining examples, however. Phelan was also excited about the future of rising star Theodore Roosevelt, whom he quoted as looking “forward to the day when not a single European power will hold a foot of American soil.” Roosevelt and his fellow “bronco riders,” at the alarm bells of war, gathered around “Old Glory” to aid the effort of

“American expansionism.” Phelan was also glad for the leadership of William McKinley, who exhibited “devotion to the study of Washington’s ideals like no man since Lincoln.” Likewise,

Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, ascendant voice of racialist immigration restrictions, received praise from the editor for his efforts to bring the “best of Americanism” to the “isles of tropic seas” and the Pacific. Responding to fears that accepting so many Catholic territories into the nation’s charge would lead to destruction of the republic itself, Phelan argued that would only be true “if we allow them to assimilate us instead of our assimilating them.” Even the Catholic

Church knew this, as evidenced by the Archbishop of Ireland’s concerns over the fate of

21 C.C. Phelan, “The Value of American Patriotism,” Purple Bell (February 1899), 26-29, LOC.

138

Catholicism in the territories. These concerns were well-founded, according to Phelan, as America was up to the task of “destroying superstition.”22

As an order whose goal was to maintain Protestantism and patriotism, the task of fighting

“superstition” was the Orange Institution’s mission, and its leaders called for it, in a literal religious sense, through the pages of the Purple Bell.

New territory has come under the influence of our Republic. Territory with the blight of ignorance, superstition and accompanying vices upon it. It is now the mission of seventy millions of people in this land to send forth into that land—the Philippines—men and women representative of the highest that is has been in their privilege to gain. Not only should patriotic Protestants accept American expansionism, but it was their duty to engage in the “civilizing” project by bringing their values to millions of individuals in the Pacific,

“lifting them into the fellowship of the nations of earth.” Keenly aware of how values and patriotism were spread, the author identified schools, the church, and the printing press as the primary tools that must use to imbue their values in potential converts.23 Orangemen themselves should answer to be “patriots of peace” as “missionaries of civil and spiritual power.” They had responded in the thousands, according to the Purple Bell, to Supreme Grand

Master James Ray’s call to fight in the war, resulting in a heightened status for Orangemen among the public.24 Now, the Order called upon “one worthy patriot” to represent the Order in the next task. “Let this be done,” the editor proposed, “and we shall be drawn nearer the public confidence and shall command an acknowledgement in the settlement of this great question.”25

22 Ibid. 23 “Our Mission,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 8-9. 24 Not all Orangemen agreed that enlisting had helped the effort to improve the public’s perception of them. See Chapter 5. 25 “Patriots of Peace,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 9, LOC.

139

The idea that American Protestants could successfully convert Puerto Rico and the

Philippines was not without its skeptics, and the Purple Bell was ready to answer them. The

Watchman, of St. Louis, expressed its doubts, and compared the efforts of Protestants in America to those of Catholics in the New World. “In all that vast expanse of territory over which the flag of the United States floats, the red man has become almost a memory,” The Watchman noted.

Conversely, in regions that had been colonized by Spain, indigenous peoples were “Christianized and civilized,” whereas in the US, natives either died off or were still “savages.” Catholic

Spaniards and Frenchmen, on the contrary, were gentler with Indians, “meeting the Indians more than halfway” by accommodating their customs and culture, allowing their descendants to now be the ruling classes of those countries. The Purple Bell responded that the same process was now going on in British North America at the hands of the “low Jesuit.” It was not to be celebrated, for

“[t]he seed of degeneration is inherent in any movement of that kind, and it requires but a short time for it to work out in the destruction of a race subjected to it.” Instead, the Purple Bell argued, the Catholic Church should abandon Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines and “give

Protestantism the right of way unhindered,” and in fifty years’ time the population of those countries would enjoy civil and religious liberty as they had never known.26

To back up this claim, Phelan quoted an article in the Christian Advocate by a Dr. A.B.

Leonard that related the author’s personal observations during his two-month visit to Cuba and

Puerto Rico. As a Protestant missionary, Dr. Leonard believed, “To know what Roman

Catholicism can do for a people as a civilizing force, one must visit a country where it has had undisputed sway for centuries.” Having done so, he claimed that self-government and freedom of worship had been repressed in both places, and that it was a Protestant’s “privilege and duty” to

26 “Theory Versus Fact,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 55, LOC.

140

proselytize there. Anticipating one possible challenge to his evidence that Catholicism resulted in a backwards society, he argued that Europe did not fit this mold because so much of it was

Protestant, which kept Rome in check through close contact and mitigation.27 Missionary work in

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines was not only a moral imperative for Orangemen and - women, but a patriotic act that provided a chance for national redemption. The US military had won battles, but the next fight was over education in the new territories. “Heretofore, we have been assimilating all kinds, good, bad and indifferent; giving them full citizenship without their having learned anything of the country, the form of government, constitutional principles, of the adjustment of themselves to the altogether new way,” the Purple Bell lamented. But Cuba, it argued, would be different and presented a new opportunity.28 This was a form of patriotism that did not require militarism, but was better taught “by the charities and restraints of domestic life than by the wild rush of the battlefield or the comradeship of the camp and the march.”29

However important missionary work was to Orangemen and -women, though, they were still sure to share their experiences “of the camp and the march” and emphasize the values of masculinity and militarism.30 W. Warren Webb and F.A. Hobbs, both readers from Maine, documented their experiences as soldiers encamped at Chickamauga Park, Georgia. Webb, signaling his adherence to masculine expectations, noted that he had signed up to stop “the barbarous and inhuman slaughter of innocent women and children” carried out by the Spanish in

27 “Facts Worthy of Consideration,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 108, LOC; Charles H. Fahs et al., The Open Door: A Challenge to Missionary Advance; Addresses Delivered before the First General Missionary Convention of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Held in Cleveland, Ohio, October 21 to 24, 1902 (New York; Cincinnati: Eaton & Mains; Jennings & Pye, 1903). 28 “Patriotism in Peace,” Purple Bell (April 1899), 78, LOC. 29 “Patriotism Without Militarism,” Purple Bell (April 1899), 77, LOC. 30 Kristin L. Hoganson has demonstrated the influence of gender convictions on the American public's attitude toward the wars in Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish- American and Philippine-American Wars (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

141

Cuba. Both men’s accounts tell of typical experiences among the soldiers stationed at

Chickamauga, including extreme heat, sickness, and general deprivation.31 As ever before and after, members of the Orange Order were concerned with expressing their patriotism, both to the outside world and to each other. One editorial from the Purple Bell foreshadowed Roosevelt’s

“Big Stick” policy, positing that being for prepared for war was the “surest guaranty for peace.”

Diplomacy was good, it argued, but it was better to rely upon “a first-class fleet of first-class battleships.”32 A brief biography of George Washington, with a strong emphasis of manliness, also appeared in the magazine, providing an example for male readers.33

For the readers who did not have a battlefield on which to prove their mettle, the Purple

Bell offered an alternative in day-to-day work. It warned against the physical and spiritual dangers of idleness, telling young men, “[d]on’t be afraid of killing yourself with overwork.” Arguing that such a fate was unlikely, the article promised that hard work gave one a hearty appetite, ensured sound sleep, and gave one a heightened appreciation for holidays. The greater danger resided in the excesses of too much free time. “They [the un-industrious] die sometimes, but it’s because they quit work at 6 PM and don’t go home until 2 AM.” Hard work also brought dignity, and the author pointed out that “[t]here are young men who do not work, but the world is not proud of them.”34

But the most important work was that of maintaining democratic institutions, which were only as strong as their defenders. Again, manliness was an essential quality for this task, and an untitled paragraph made this clear for readers.

31 W. Warren Webb, “Chickamauga Reminiscences,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 45-47; F.A. Hobbs, “From Augusta, Me., to Chickamauga Park,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 104, LOC; Gregory Dean Chapman, “Army Life at Camp Thomas, Georgia, During the Spanish-American War,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 70, no. 4 (1986): 633–56. 32 “Patriotic Sayings,” Purple Bell (March 1899), LOC. 33 “The Cincinnatus of the West,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 31-33, LOC. 34 “Work Will Not Hurt,” Purple Bell (April 1899), 75, LOC.

142

[Y]ou cannot purchase constitutional liberty with money…paint it on gilded walls of splendid places…engrave it on the corner stones of colleges or costly capitals… Constitutions are a sham, and the law is a mockery, unless the people behind it have the manhood to defend the one and enforce the other.…liberty’s last, best, and strongest fortress is the manhood, character and self-reliance of this American people.35 There were clearly many lessons to be learned about patriotism, the racial destiny of Protestants, and manliness in the pages of the Orange Order’s magazine, but men were not the only audience, or even contributors.

Orangewomen and the Purple Bell

The Orange press abroad had a history of covering the activities of women’s lodges, and the growth of the women’s Order in Britain was concurrent with the Orange and Protestant

Banner’s founding. It and other publications contributed to the spread of women’s Orangeism by advertising its growth and other triumphs, while actively calling for new women’s Lodges.36 The

Purple Bell served a similar role for American women’s Lodges at the turn of the century.

Orangewomen had a very active role in the magazine, not only as readers, subscribers, and subjects, but also as authors. In fact, individual women were some of the most frequent authors, and their output represented several genres of writing, from poetry to fiction to instructive philosophical reflections. Women writers of the Orange Order used the organ’s publication as an outlet for creativity and as a forum to build community and convey the ideals they hoped fellow

Orangewomen and -men would strive to maintain. Much of the material provided by women authors to the Purple Bell was penned by members from Maine and exalted the values they

35 Purple Bell (April 1899), 81, LOC. 36 D. A. J. MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order: Female Activism, Diaspora and Empire in the British World, 1850-1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 25, 26.

143

believed were exemplified by agrarian settings. According to historian Robert Wiebe, middle-class

Progressives of this period attempted to impose order on a changing world as a way to mitigate the disappearance of small-town “island communities’” and limit the influence of business interests that would supplant them.37 Middle-class individuals had more control of leadership in small communities, and many Progressive writers nostalgically associated the towns from their childhoods with bucolic leisure, in contrast to urban life.38 Such depictions of rural communities were also common in nativist periodicals of the era, with many focusing on specific communities.39

The Purple Bell devoted a significant amount of page space to “the mutual help and enjoyment of all lovers of the old farm home,” and invited readers to “come from your far-off city homes for a whiff of mountain air, the scent of apple blossoms, [and] the song of the wind among the pines.” The words evoked a strong sense of place, connecting features of a rural setting with readers’ nostalgic sensibilities. Guests were not asked to come empty-handed, but to bring along

“a bunch of grandmother’s hollyhocks or a branch from mother’s sweetbrier rose-bush.” Such items prompted readers to remember the warm feminine embrace of their childhoods, “those sweet years which have given color and fragrance to all your subsequent experience.”40

For the Purple Bell’s readers who needed visual cues to transport them back to pastoral settings, the editors provided frequent photographs. Most of the pictures were from the area around

37 Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1965). 38 Jane Adams, The Transformation of Rural Life: Southern Illinois, 1890-1990 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994); Robert G. Barrows, “Urbanizing America,” in Charles Calhous, ed., The Gilded Age: Essays on the Origins of Modern America (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1996), 101-118. 39 Justin Nordstrom, Danger on the Doorstep: Anti-Catholicism and American Print Culture in the Progressive Era (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), 66-68. Women’s clubs were also active in bringing nature into the city during the Progressive Era; see Jon A. Peterson, “The City Beautiful Movement: Forgotten Origins and Lost Meanings,” Journal of Urban History 2, no. 4 (1976): 415–434; and Daphne Spain, How Women Saved the City (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001). 40 “Farm and Home,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 56.

144

Portland, Maine, and featured rustic scenes that would be recognizable to anyone who had been to the country. “The Grange,” or family farm, was the epicenter of American character, as agriculture was “the basis of our national prosperity,” and all who lodged there were invited to a “feast of reason, flow of soul” that would “rival the Athenian feasts.” A photo of the “Old George McClellan

House,” a typical colonial-style farm house surrounded by open fields built in 1773 in Gorham,

Maine, and was featured as an example. While the emphasis on agriculture and rural settings countered the more prominent over-arching thread of education, the Purple Bell still expressed the anti-Catholic obsession with schools but placed it more forcefully within the rural context that “the little red schoolhouse” had always implied. Several images featured schools from southern Maine, including the Gorham Academy and the Western Normal School, also in Gorham.41

The Purple Bell’s most prolific contributor, Jennie Bodge Johnson, focused on her natural surroundings in Gorham through poetry and photography. Johnson’s work was first featured in the

March 1899 issue, and the editor asked readers to give special attention to her “rural gems,” in a series titled “Glenrock Glimpses.” The magazine reemphasized that patriotism and agriculture had always been closely aligned, ever since “Cincinnatus left his plow and went to the rescue of

Rome,” and that farmers had subsequently provided the world with many patriots, including “most of the army of ’76.” Johnson’s inaugural poem, “Greetings from the Pine Tree State,” captured this theme, weaving together imagery of Maine’s thick forests of northern pine, its patriotism, and a longing for an imagined past in danger of being lost, ending each stanza with a veneration of

“Auld Lang Syne,” or times long past. The next page featured a large photograph of the woods at

41 Ibid, 56-58; Purple Bell (April 1899), 77, LOC.

145

Glenrock Farm, followed by another poem celebrating the blue spring sky peeking through the branches of the forest.42

Johnson’s subsequent output followed the same format, with poems about the scenes around her, such as cows in a pasture, the surrounding woods, blooming flowers, waterfalls, the arrival of spring, and the onset of snow, all accompanied by half-page or larger photographs.43

Like the editorial appeals to pastoral virtues featured in the Purple Bell, Johnson’s poems and the accompanying photographs used specific locations to evoke universal nostalgia. A photo of a stream running through a pasture at Glenrock, a canoe tied to a tree along the Presumpscot River, or the farm house at Longfellow Highlands could all be nearly anywhere in America—or perhaps even Ulster.44

The women who contributed to the Purple Bell also participated in a wider project demonstrating the intellectual contributions of the rural middle class. As Justin Nordstrom has argued, writers like the authors in the Purple Bell worked to fight perceptions of rural folk as

“ignorant rustics,” and “insisted that the tradition of ‘enlightenment’ was not exclusively the work of urban metropolises, but was carried on in America’s hinterland.”45 The philosophical reflections that centered around the Grange were simply signed “Ceres,” after the Roman Goddess of agriculture and fertility. Ceres’s entries were primarily musings that illustrated values she thought all good Protestant women should share, and these values were inextricably tied to rural life. In a brief piece titled “Home Culture for Farmers’ Wives,” Ceres encouraged her audience to fight the

42 “Patriotism and Agriculture;” Jennie B. Johnson, “Greeting from the Pine Tree State,” and “A Glimpse of Blue,” The Purple Bell (March 1899), 49, LOC. 43 Jennie B. Johnson, “Longfellow,” “In Glenrock Woods,” “Eastertide,” “April,” “Just Out of Reach,” “The Snowdrop,” Purple Bell (March and April 1899), 52, 54, 67, 70, 72, 74, LOC. 44 “Break of Dawn,” “River Reflections,” and “Place Stevenson, Longfellow Highlands, Gorham, Me,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 99-101, LOC. 45 Nordstrom, Danger on the Doorstep, 69.

146

drudgery of wifely duties by taking opportunities, when presented, to enrich their minds, as constant physical demands should not keep women from keeping those minds sharp. “No seven- by-nine kitchen can hedge in a woman who is loyal to her chances!” she insisted. Keeping on hand

“some bracing genius” such as Thoreau or Whittier would clear away the weariness. If this were not possible, one could of course turn to the Bible, where the “Psalms hold the living essence of poetry, if they have not the jingle of .”46

In addition to the farm wife’s intellect, Ceres also praised her pioneer spirit. Such women were strong and healthy, with ancestors who came to a new country full of abundant resources with a fixation on “possession, home-making, and posterity.” The settling of nature was a joint endeavor, and these wives took to the task “with the same zeal and energy as the husband,” gaining practical experience in “wholesome food, wholesome conversation, substantial literature,” and a great deal of hard work. Evidence of their work could be found everywhere in rural homes: in linen sheets, towels and tablecloths, “comforting wool blankets,” rugs, carpets, and quilts. Though a farm wife had many burdens, “she bore them patiently and bravely.” Ceres connected these perceived feminine duties with nature itself, explaining that the farmer’s wife excelled at such purposes because, “The love of the beautiful was in her heart…and it was met in her close relationship with nature.” For Ceres, the rural woman who kept in touch with nature and adhered to proscribed motherly and wifely roles was an ideal to which women readers of the Purple Bell should subscribe.47

Like Jennie Johnson’s poetry and the photographs of the scenery around Glenrock, Ceres used the beauty of the countryside to cast an image through rose-colored lenses. As spring arrived, she heralded the arrival of seed catalogs, which carried “inspiration and new purpose to thousands

46 “Home Culture for Farmers’ Wives,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 56, LOC. 47 “The Farmer’s Wife of Fifty Years Ago,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 101, LOC.

147

who worship at Flora’s shrine.” Flower lovers—which all good farmers’ wives were—should

“welcome and patronize these characteristic heroes,” who were “defenders of the fairest ideals given to human lives.”48 Two months later, in the May issue, Jennie Johnson published a poem dedicated to the month of flowers, accompanied by a photo of a young woman seated amongst

Flora’s bounty.49

However, not all the content produced by women for the Purple Bell was focused on nature.

The magazine also provided Orangewomen with a venue to exercise their creativity for its own sake. Edith J. Arey’s first contribution, “My Hospital Experience,” was a fictional piece about a young woman, Miss Raymond, who is convinced by a friend to become a nurse. She trains under the guidance of Dr. Brainard, who is young, handsome, and beloved, but assigns Miss Raymond the most difficult tasks. She rises to the occasion without fail and develops a reputation as the most skilled nurse in the hospital, displaying Christ-like abilities to comfort the sick and dying.

Raymond soon forms an emotional bond with another physician, Dr. Arnold, over their shared treatment and care of a two-year-old whose legs were crushed under a wagon and who eventually succumbed to her injuries. Before things become too serious between Arnold and Raymond, Dr.

Brainard admits that he loves Raymond and only subjected her to such tortuous work because he knows her strength.50

Arey’s story exhibits some straightforward Christian themes as well as more personal ones.

Miss Raymond is kind and gentle with patients and has an almost supernatural touch that comes from her “natural” religious devotion and caretaking abilities as a woman. She spiritually saves one patient—a woman her own age who is dying of consumption—and calms another man

48 “That Rural Feeling,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 57, LOC. 49 “May,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 95, LOC. 50 “My Hospital Experience,” Purple Bell (April 1899), 69-76, LOC.

148

delirious with fever.51 Arey may have also used fiction writing as an outlet to explore possibilities outside her own reality. As a homemaker in rural Maine, she surely faced the drudgery Ceres warned against.52 Early in “My Hospital Experience,” Raymond’s friend points out her aversion to monotony, proposing nursing as an exciting career option.53 Writing must have also provided

Arey with an outlet for understanding experiences she had endured herself: six years before the story was published, Arey’s own two-year-old daughter had died of meningitis.54 The heart- wrenching detail with which Arey describes the fictional child’s agony and the grief experienced by its care-takers were certainly born out of the author’s own ordeal.

Arey also revealed other things about herself in the pages of the Purple Bell. She was clearly a fan of George Eliot (the nom de plume of English author Mary Ann Evans) and drew upon the novelist and poet’s work for inspiration. The character of Miss Raymond, before engaging in nursing, whiles her hours away consuming and imitating Eliot’s work, but concedes to her fried it is not a practical way to make a living.55 The second piece published under Arey’s name was based directly upon the work of Eliot. “The Legend of St. Ogg” recounts the story of

Ogg the boatman, after whom Eliot’s fictional town of St. Ogg, the setting for the novel The Mill on the Floss, is named. In the novel, Ogg was an ancient boatman on the Floss and the only one who would ferry a wretched woman and her baby across the river during a storm. Once across, the woman revealed herself to be the Virgin Mother and blessed Ogg’s boat eternally.56 Arey exhibits other echoes of Eliot’s work, especially her depictions of rural settings and women navigating

51 Ibid. 52 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 53 “My Hospital Experience,” 69. 54 “Maine, Death Records, 1761-1922,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 55 “My Hospital Experience,” 69. 56 “The Legend of St. Ogg,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 102; George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss (Boston: Ginn, 1914), 118-119.

149

interest from competing suitors. It is also possible that Arey imitated Eliot when she signed her maiden name to “My Hospital Experience.” Arey’s husband, Chesley C. Phelan, was the editor of the Purple Bell, and Arey published “The Legend of St. Ogg” under her married name.57 Like

Eliot, Arey also may have used one or more anonymous pen names in the pages of the magazine.

Ceres signed her first piece from Westbrook, Maine, where the Phelans lived in the late 1890s.58

Edith Arey Phelan was a clear lover of literature, making her the type of woman who might suggest that the burdened housewife ease her drudgery with the help of poets.

Transnational Protestants

Beyond fighting the doldrums, reading was a way for Orangemen and -women to stay informed about the broader fight against the global threat of Romanism. Serving as a bulwark against the Catholic Church was a prime component of their Orange identity, and accounts of individual such efforts of both Orangemen and other Protestant crusaders featured prominently in the Purple Bell. Supreme Grand Master John C. Hardenburgh recounted his experiences as a known APA member and alderman in Cleveland, hoping to “unveil the questionable practices of the average Municipal Corporation, and illustrate the duties of citizenship.” Republicans approached him to stand for city council election in 1893 but demurred amid concerns his APA membership might be too controversial. Hardenburgh somehow maneuvered his way onto the more powerful Democratic ticket, incensing local Catholics and spurring a heated election in which “the men who had been ever ready to advance to me the right hand of fellowship for my previous efforts in labor organizations, now stood ready with uplifted bludgeon to administer to me either political or bodily harm.” Despite such opposition, Hardenburgh was diligent in his

57 “My Hospital Experience,” 76; “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940.” 58 “Maine, Death Records, 1761-1922.”

150

duties as an APA man. When a Catholic was up for the job of city clerk, Hardenburgh claimed he was the only one to vote “no,” despite the offer of a bribe in the form of a job with an $18,000 annual salary for his son-in-law. The Orangeman also used his position to protect the interests of his fellow citizens, in his view, by voting against constructing a privately-owned streetcar line. He explained, “I maintained the theory that the streets belong to the people,” and that the city had no right to “grant a franchise which would place such highways out of the control of their rightful owners… for the benefit of corporations.”59

Hardenburgh’s story reflected many of the concerns of the Progressive movement, which targeted political corruption and machines, as well as appropriation of public holdings. But as a member of the APA and the Orange Order, Hardenburgh consequently saw at least some of the problems of modern life as directly related to Catholic encroachment. His open support for the

APA made him too controversial a candidate for the Republican Party—which generally enjoyed

APA support—because of the voting power of Catholics in the city. He slyly made his way onto the Democratic ticket instead, agitating the very voting bloc his former Republican friends hoped to appease. After thwarting the political machine to get elected, Hardenburgh continued to do so by maintaining his principals against corrupt fellow politicians and refusing to “sell out” by allowing Catholics to serve in city government or corporations to profit from public property.

Although the body politic was compromised, he proclaimed that “true patriotism” knew no corruption and “true Americanism…knows no intrigue.”60

However, because American Orangemen positioned patriotism within Protestantism, it could be transnational, and the Purple Bell frequently published short biographies of “patriots” from elsewhere. Former adherents who fought against the Catholic Church, like Gavazzi

59 “APA Democratic Alderman,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 97-98, LOC. 60 Ibid.

151

(discussed in the previous chapter), were especially heroic. A piece by Canadian Methodist minister and publisher William H. Withrow lamented the death of “Father” Charles Chiniquy, a

Quebecois priest who converted to become a Presbyterian minister and toured the US, Canada,

Britain, and even to denounce the Catholic Church.61 In 1855, Chiniquy had been sued by a man the article described as a land speculator over the priest’s attempt to start a colony in

Illinois, and in the ensuing legal fight, Chiniquy was represented by Abraham Lincoln. The priest claimed the Catholic Church in Chicago had backed the speculator, again connecting the church to a target of Progressivism. After a series of run-ins with the church, Chiniquy was eventually de- frocked.62 Chiniquy was presented as a role model for other Protestants because he exhibited many of the qualities Orangemen espoused. He refused to bend his principles in the face of alleged persecution by the Catholic Church, and eventually rejected its teachings in favor of devoting his life to denouncing them. His one-time relationship with Lincoln spoke to Chiniquy’s character, as did his fight against land speculators who would profit from public resources, demonstrating values Orangemen like John Hardenburgh appreciated.

Girolamo Savonarola, a fifteenth-century friar who denounced church corruption and challenged the limits of papal authority, was also featured. The piece, authored by legal scholar and one-time US Assistant Secretary of State John Bassett Moore, celebrated Savonarola as a reformer within the Church who was martyred for his efforts. As editor, Phelan noted that Rome was considering Savonarola for sainthood and hoped the church would not “sully his name” with

61 For Chiniquy, see Donald M. MacRaild, “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery’: Militant Protestant Preachers in the Nineteenth-Century Anglo-World,” Journal of Religious History 39, no. 2 (June 2015), 229–36. 62 “Father Chiniquy,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 47, LOC; John Messing, “Public Lands, Politics, and Progressives: The Oregon Land Fraud Trials, 1903-1910,” Pacific Historical Review 35, no. 1 (1966): 35–66.

152

such an honor. The biography appeared immediately after Edith Arey’s reimagining of “The

Legend of St. Ogg,” suggesting the intriguing possibility that the editor’s understanding of

Savonarola was influenced by George Eliot’s portrayal of the friar in her novel, Romola.63

Conversion or martyrdom were not required for a Catholic to be a patriot, however, so long one fought to protect the rights of Protestants. Such was the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the first

Francophone Prime Minister of Canada, whose solution to the “Manitoba Schools Question” earned him a place in the pantheon of patriots. In 1890, the Manitoba legislature had eliminated funding for Catholic schools, violating the Manitoba Act of 1870, which guaranteed education for both Catholics and Protestants. Laurier offered a compromise that pleased both sides in which, on a case-by-case basis, Manitoba Catholics could form their own school if there were enough students in a locality to warrant one. The author lamented that such compromises could not be reached so easily in America because of a “hardness of feeling” that had “divided the ward, the city, and the state.” He added, “No man should be ostracized because of his religion, nor proscribed, if he be a worthy American citizen.”64 This is striking, given the Orange Order’s participation in calling for exactly such measures against Catholics, whose religion was precisely what made them unworthy of citizenship in the eyes of Orangemen. But the point the author made was that, unlike the United States, Protestants in Canada were not marginalized, despite Catholic

“control” of politics in many places there.

Again, patriotism relied upon adherence to the nation’s institutions, but as American-born minister and prominent Orangeman George Lemmon had illustrated in his 1894 interview with the

63 John Moore, “Savonarola of Florence,” Purple Bell (May 1899), 102-104, LOC; George Eliot, Romola (Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz, 1863). 64 “Canadian Patriotism: A Study,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 9-10, LOC; Roger Riendeau, A Brief (New York: Facts on File, 2008), 171-72, 181-82, 192.

153

New York Times, loyalty was predicated upon the nation protecting Protestants.65 The Purple Bell reiterated this point, stating, “American independence does not depend on the kind of religion one may hold to, but it depends upon its adherence to the government. It depends upon the loyalty to institutions created from out [of] the genius of early Americanism.”66 Because the structure of the

Catholic Church was hierarchical, with ultimate power resting in Rome, it was not possible for

Orangemen to imagine how Catholics might hold reverence for and follow the teachings of a foreign potentate while remaining loyal to the United States. Canadians provided readers with an example of Protestant patriotism within the British Empire through their devoted loyalty to Queen

Victoria. “Criticism is not passed on their superiors by the unthinking and untrained,” the same author argued, adding that Americans would do well to take a lesson from their northern neighbors in their treatment of their own leaders. Only when President McKinley had the “respect shown to him that is shown to the Queen” and “the youth of the land [understood] that men, not scalawags, are elevated to that office, then his arm shall be made stronger, and the youth more patriotic.”

Pointing to the Spanish-American War, he noted that “thousands of Orangemen” had done their part in the president’s service on behalf of the American empire.67

The Purple Bell and Maintaining the American Orange Community

In addition to promoting the Orange Order’s vision of patriotism, appeals in the pages of its official magazine worked to connect Orangemen and -women to each other and cemented the benefits of Orange networks. Readers were encouraged to advertise in the Purple Bell and, in turn, readers were asked to patronize their Orange brothers and sisters. Advertising manager and Past

65 Lemmon’s interview is discussed in Chapter 3. 66 “Canadian Patriotism: A Study.” 67 Ibid.

154

Supreme Grand Master James Ray alerted readers that it was advantageous to advertise in the

Purple Bell, “as it circulates amongst the purchasing class, and those whose motto is, ‘Patronage for Patriots.’” Ray claimed a readership for the magazine in the thousands in New England, as well as New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cleveland, and Minneapolis, all cities with vigorous Orange activity. Notes from Ray also frequently reminded readers throughout 1899 to patronize the business that advertised in the magazine, and to let those businesses know they had seen their ad in the Purple Bell.68 “Readers and friends” were encouraged to “walk the straight and narrow way that leads to A.S. MacKenzie’s jewelry store,” in Boston, where customers would be

“used fair and square.”69 Attention was likewise called to John C. Gordon’s insurance advertisement. “Orangemen and their friends will do well to patronize him, as he is a true

Protestant and a staunch patriot.”70

Along with Gordon, Charles E. McPhee, an advertiser who specialized in Orange uniforms and regalia, wrote to congratulate the publishers on the launch of the Purple Bell. Gordon praised the inaugural issue, calling it an “attractive, dignified, and high-class magazine,” that deserved the support of “all true and loyal citizens.” McPhee agreed, referring to the magazine as “neat, well arranged, and highly interesting.” Other advertisers, virtually all in the Boston area, included photographer Emily Stokes, Professor Grady of the Stammering Institute, and James Ray, who as the advertising manager, saved some of the largest spaces for himself. Ray was an importer by trade, and his ads promised the best tea from India and Ceylon, clothing on credit, watches, and home furnishings.71 In April of 1899, Ray used his business to drum up subscriptions to the Purple

Bell by offering some of his wares as prizes. In addition to imported goods, Ray also sold steam

68 Purple Bell (January 1899), 7, LOC. 69 “Readers and Friends,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 7, LOC. 70 Purple Bell (January 1899), 37, LOC. 71 Ibid, 37, 40, 41, 43, 55.

155

ship tickets, and anyone who started a Purple Bell reading club with 125 subscribers would receive free roundtrip passage to Britain in a second-class cabin. A second contest offered “decorated china, tea, and toilet sets” to be given away for increasing the publication’s circulation, although the ad failed to note the required number of new subscriptions.72

The Purple Bell also served as a place for individual Orange Lodges to share news about their activities with each other. A directory in which men’s and women’s lodges could choose to list their information appeared near the end of each issue, and lodge secretaries were welcome to send reports of recent happenings. Many of the reports around the beginning of the new year noted the installation of new officers in various lodges, including women’s lodges. That of the Daughters of Lodge in Quincy, Massachusetts, was witnessed by fifty visiting Orangemen, including several city government officers.73 At another installation meeting in Houlton, Maine,

Reverend D.B. Phelan—brother of Purple Bell editor C.C. Phelan—delivered a speech “brim full of wit, humor, and patriotism, having to wait many times for the applause to subside, that he might finish.” Another “pleasant entertainment” was promised by Lincoln Ladies’ Lodge no. 5, also of

Houlton, in March. All friends were invited, as long as they were willing to pay the admission fee.74 Reports like these reaffirmed to Orangemen and -women everywhere a sense of the fellowship and social gratification that the Order provided to people just like themselves, portraying events and situations that were familiar to them.

Cambridge True Blue Lodge no. 17 reported a ball in April of 1899 that it claimed was

“one of the largest and finest assemblies held for many years in Massachusetts.” Several hundred participated, and the decorations, which included mottoes and purple bells, were described.

72 Purple Bell (April 1899), 86, LOC. 73 “Cumberland Star Lodge,” “Waltham Guiding Star LOL no. 349,” “Aroostook LOL,” Purple Bell (January 1899), 29, 30, 34; Purple Bell (April 1899), 84-85, LOC. 74 “Items from Aroostook County, Me,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 60, LOC.

156

“[M]erry dancers were kept moving lively until the wee small hours,” and the grand march, in which all couples processed in a single column to begin the ball, “was finely executed, considering that about 200 couples participated with a much larger number crowding around and looking down from the balconies.”75 Through these reports, readers could imagine themselves attending such events even if living in small or rural towns prevented them from holding their own, and they could take pride in the number of attendees at an event held by their fellow Orange members. The successes of individual lodges were also trumpeted. Traynor Lodge no. 266, of Denver, had been formed by its namesake, William Traynor, only a few years earlier and was making good progress in the spring of 1899. Abraham Lincoln no. 268 in Fortuna, California, was also “making great strides,” and the officers of Washington no. 440 in Los Angeles had formed the lodge in January of the same year and were touted as “hustlers of the right stamp.” No Surrender Lodge no. 143 of

Eureka, California, was especially industrious, and owned the entire city block its building occupied, renting out apartments to town officials and offices and retail space to local businesses.76

News that fellow Orangemen and -women were meeting with success across the country must have reassured readers that their Order was in good shape, reinforcing not only their positive attitudes toward the organization, but also giving them the opportunity to root for members of their community whom they did not personally know.

Connecting the Transnational Community

The Purple Bell further allowed American readers to keep abreast of Orange news throughout the world via “glowing accounts of the Order and matters of special interest.” In this way, the magazine served as a virtual meeting place for members of the Orange community across

75 Purple Bell (April 1899), 84, LOC. 76 “From the Field,” “Nuggets from California,” Purple Bell (April 1899), 83, LOC.

157

the country and beyond. It reinforced a shared identity among readers based on membership in the

Orange Order, through news about international events of concern. News of the upcoming triennial meeting of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of 1900 in New York—the first one to be held in the Unites States—appeared in the magazine, which urged Orangemen to do their duty and “let

[their] aid and help the committee be spontaneous and magnanimous,” so that “our mission will at once become realized all over our land.” A “monster parade” which would include delegates “from every part of the Globe” was planned, and readers were encouraged to act quickly and make their arrangements for June of 1900, so that they might be “one of the many present on that glorious occasion.”77

At the Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA meeting of 1898, the Purple Bell reported, the body passed a resolution thanking Brothers N. Clark Wallace and Dr. T.S. Sproule, both Canadian

MPs and Orangemen, for their kind words, encouragement, and advice while visiting the Chicago meeting. The members of the Grand Lodge hoped that the transnational Orange community could serve as a bridge between the US and Canada and that “these friendly visits between brethren of a common ancestry, but of different nationalities, may tend to draw closer together in the bonds of fellowship and union the two nations until the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack may be recognized by the whole world as the united champions of civil and religious liberty forever.”78

Orangemen were again invoking a common heritage as British subjects that was both biological and ideological as a qualification to champion their values throughout the world.

Championing such values was, as always, a global project for Orangemen. To further connect themselves to their brethren abroad, the editors of the Purple Bell regularly printed news

77 “Triennial Committee,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 59, LOC. 78 “Resolutions of the Supreme Grand Orange Lodge of the United States of America,” Purple Bell (February 1899), 34, LOC.

158

form Ireland and Britain. “Our friends across the water would probably like to hear of the movements of their brethren in the old country, especially in Ulster where we can look back on our ancestry with pride and enjoy the legacy of freedom bequeathed to us by our sires,” the editor explained. By April of 1899, the magazine had recruited a correspondent in “the ‘Maiden City,’

Old Londonderry, Ireland.” Londonderry was an especially important city in Orange history as one of the first sites of battle in 1689 between Catholic and Protestant forces in William of

Orange’s campaign in Ireland. “The City on the [River] Foyle played a noble part in past history; the heroic defense it made paved the way for the victory at the Boyne and the triumph of civil and religious liberty.” Readers were alerted to an upcoming parliamentary election in the city and

Unionist efforts to get their message out. Just as in America, a major issue distressing Orangemen and -women was the funding of “sectarian” educational institutions, in this case Catholic colleges and universities in Ireland.79 While Orangemen appreciated Lord Balfour’s praise of Anglo-Saxon unity, quoted above, they balked at a recent proposed scheme that would establish a Catholic university in Ireland as “injurious to the Orange Institution and Protestant Population at large.”

The Orangemen of Ireland have always been loyal supporters and defenders of the crown and constitution of England, and they cannot and will not suffer their hard- earned money to be used not only for establishing a Roman Catholic University in Ireland, but by allowing the men whom they have been fighting against for the past 300 years to establish Popery in their midst.80 American Orangemen and -women were as concerned about Catholic control of education in

Ireland as they were in the United States, as they feared the teachings of the Church would undermine students’ patriotism to the nation, whether it be America or British-controlled Ireland.

79 “From Across the Sea,” Purple Bell (April 1899), 81-86, 110, LOC. 80 Ibid, 110.

159

Returning to natural metaphors, the Purple Bell asked readers, “What are you doing?” in the Order’s transnational fight against Rome. Celebrating the arrival of spring, L.H. Jones—an

Orangeman and the Superintendent of Schools for Cleveland—welcomed “the season when nature sends out her subjects to cover the earth with bud, bloom and blossom,” when “the best of Nature’s children do battle with the weeds and tares, and by their victory make the world brighter and better, and the heart of man glad.” Jones encouraged readers to do their part in promoting virtue, industry, frugality, and patriotism, reminding them that “our beloved Order is the foe of error and superstition, and the champion of civil and religious liberty.” Extra effort was needed, as the list of threats was mounting. Archbishop of Baltimore, Cardinal Gibbons, according to Jones, claimed that the Catholic Church had loaned money to Spain in the recent war and was unsure whether to ask Spain or the US for repayment, a proposition that certainly made Orangemen uncomfortable.

Meanwhile, a committee within the Massachusetts legislature had favorably received a request from Carney (Catholic) Hospital for $10,000 for “charity’s sake,” while Congress had approved

“various appropriations” that added to “the wealth and power of Rome.”81

Orangemen like Jones perpetually feared the siphoning of public funds into Rome’s coffers, and these allegations provided Orangemen and -women with impetus to band together in pursuit of shared goals. Jones also warned about threats to Protestantism in Britain, arguing that the rise of Ritualism in the was providing fertile ground for the possibility of a “religious war.”82 The “Church Crisis” of the late 1890s arose when elements within the established church attempted to reintroduce elements of Catholic ritual, such as the burning of incense.83 Orangemen were part of the popular movement against such practices, and Jones touted

81 L.H. Jones, “What Are You Doing?” Purple Bell (April 1899), 85, LOC. 82 Ibid. 83 See Bethany Kilcrease, The Great Church Crisis and the End of English Erastianism, 1898-1906 (New York: Routledge, 2018).

160

their role, especially in petitioning to suppress mass and confessionals in the Anglican Church. He claimed that of 744 telegrams sent to a monster meeting supporting the effort held in Albert Hall,

191 were from the Loyal Orange Institution across the English-speaking world.84 Such fights were part of the Orange Order’s larger global project of mitigating, in its view, the efforts of a powerful transnational enemy of freedom. The Purple Bell provided an outlet for Orangemen and -women to express their fears of papal machinations and allay those fears with calls to action from their brethren and sisters throughout the country.

Conclusion

The March 1899 issue of the Purple Bell included a report in its “Items from Aroostook

County, Me” much like any other. As Maine’s northernmost county, Aroostook is surrounded by the Canadian provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, and was a relative hotbed of Orange activity, despite its sparse population and high proportion of Francophones. The news from the

Orange Lodges there was typical of anywhere else in the US: officers were installed, dinners were served by the Ladies’ Lodges afterward, and men and women toasted William of Orange,

Washington, and Lincoln, as D.B. Phelan regaled fellow members with his wit. But winter in northern Maine is of course very cold, and the secretary of Willis Lodge no. 434 of Limerick,

Maine, was sure to note that of the number of ladies present, five had made the six-mile journey from Lincoln Lodge no.5 in Houlton “with the mercury twenty degrees below zero” so they could witness the installation of officers.85 The women of Lincoln Lodge, like thousands of

Orangewomen and -men across the United States and beyond, were willing to do this because they

84 L.H. Jones, “What Are You Doing?” 85 “Items from Aroostook County,” Purple Bell (March 1899), 60, LOC.

161

identified as part of a community that simultaneously transcended national boundaries and made them ideal citizens of nations.

While Orangewomen of Houlton, Maine, most certainly knew those in New Limerick, they considered all Orangewomen of the world their sisters, and Orangemen their brothers. One key to maintaining this kinship was the Orange press. The Purple Bell served as an official organ for the

Loyal Orange Institution of America, connecting Orangemen and -women across the country, allowing them to stay up-to-date on the activities of individuals and lodges everywhere. The magazine also provided a venue for members of the Orange community to spread and reinforce shared values. Founded during the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and immediately before the outbreak of the Philippine-American War, the first year of the Purple Bell’s run provides a window into Orangemen and -women’s views regarding their role within the context of global events. As white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, they were at the forefront of international racial debates, positioning themselves as biblically-ordained champions of freedom and individual liberty. This meant, to Orangemen, that they were natural patriots especially qualified to lead the charge against spread of Catholic power—as missionaries and educators—in the newly acquired territories of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, though it is unclear if they did so with any real vigor.

Patriotism and Protestantism went together for the American Orange Order, and the Purple

Bell presented multiple ways in which the qualities could be expressed. Mirroring attitudes typical of the late nineteenth century, Orangemen and -women presented patriotism as inextricably linked to proper displays of masculinity, and the magazine provided its readers with frequent examples.

These lessons were not limited to American patriotism, however, as faith in and protection of

Protestant interests were essential components to loyalty in the Anglo Atlantic. Not all patriotic

162

lessons in the Purple Bell were for men, and a significant amount of the magazine’s content was produced by women, with some aimed specifically toward female readers. The farmer’s wife was idealized, as Orangemen and -women participated in the broader trend of the early Progressive Era in romanticizing small-town and rural life as a contrast to urban spaces teeming with recent (and predominantly Catholic) immigrants. The Purple Bell also gave Orangewomen opportunities to express their creativity, providing relief from the drudgery that even the most perfect farmer’s wife occasionally suffered while presenting a model for rural intellectualism.

But whether individual Orangemen or -women lived in the crowded neighborhoods of

Boston, the woods of northern Maine, or in the center of town in Eureka, California, the Orange press—in the form of the Purple Bell—kept them in touch with other readers, their lodges, and the international Orange community, allowing them to maintain a transnational community. The magazine lasted at least a decade, and the American Orange Order continued to have an official paper throughout the 1910s and 1920s in the Orange and Purple Courier.86 The Courier would serve many of the same purposes as its predecessor, but factionalism within the Order led its editor to use it as a weapon against his Orange enemies, eventually dividing the community that

Orangemen and -women had endeavored to build.

86 Only the year of 1899 has survived in archives, and the last reference found to the magazine appears in 1908, in The New England Business Directory and Gazetteer (Boston: Sampson & Murdock Company, 1908), 1550.

163

Chapter 5

Between American Nativism and Irish Nationalism: Orangeism at the Turn of the Century

While APA membership numbers dropped precipitously after the partisan political disappointments of 1894, the Orange Order marched steadily on in its quest to be the standard- bearer of anti-Catholicism. As a much smaller organization, the Order’s connection to the APA had helped its own recruitment, and the Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA reported in 1896 that national membership had increased by a third.1 As the Order attempted in the early twentieth century to capitalize upon the momentum it acquired in the 1890s, it was forced to deal with changing trends in American nativism. John Higham argues that anti-Catholic nativism in the first decades of the twentieth century represented a new manifestation of old idea within the context of the Progressive Era, with reform-minded nativists displacing frustrations against monopolies and directing them toward the foreign-born. “It is hard to explain the rebirth of anti-Catholic ferment except as an outlet for expectations which progressivism raised and then failed to fulfill.”

Likewise, popular nativist sentiment shifted, partly in response to , toward a “racial nationalism” that was skeptical of ethnic Americans.2

It was within this context that the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA worked to maintain and elevate its position among anti-Catholic organizations, bringing Orangemen into collaboration with prominent anti-Catholic voices of the early twentieth century, including the Ku Klux Klan.

1 Based on the Order’s reporting in 1903, this number was probably around 10,000. The Grand Orange Lodge of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1896, Box 18, shelf 2D, USA Materials, Orange Heritage Museum, Belfast, UK (Hereafter noted as OHM). 2 John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 179, 201. Justin Nordstrom has thoroughly illustrated the links between the anti-Catholic press and Progressivism in the 1910s in Danger on the Doorstep: Anti-Catholicism and American Print Culture in the Progressive Era (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006).

164

But the attempts by more socially conservative factions within the Order to promulgate one reform—temperance—would fracture the organization in the decade and a half preceding the

Great Depression. The American Orange Order persistently endeavored to project the image of an

American patriotic organization, while also maintaining a diasporic connection with fellow

Orangemen and -women abroad. Members of the Order viewed both tactics as essential to obstructing the designs of Catholicism and . When the Order split in two, each side used perceived violations of these obligations against the other. The resulting struggle over control of the Orange Institution eventually sapped precious resources from the organization and limited both its ability to grow and the unlikely durability it previously exhibited.

Patriotism and Protestantism in the Early Twentieth Century

The outbreak of the Spanish-American War provided Orangemen a brief opportunity to show their patriotism and Protestantism. When President McKinley called for volunteers after the sinking of the Maine in 1898, Orangemen resolved to “respond and show by our deeds that the

Loyal Orange Institution is truly the most patriotic organization in the United States.” In response to the call, Supreme Grand Master John C. Hardenburg issued an order for all lodges under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Grand Lodge to “attach themselves at once with local military organizations.”3 If the call to arms was an effort to put themselves in the best light and shake off the negative associations of the previous decades, some Orangemen did not see the results they were after. When the New York State Grand Lodge met again then next year, Supreme Grand

Secretary John Bateman bemoaned the Order’s poor reputation. “In almost every city and town in the state will be found Knights of Pythias, Odd Fellows, and kindred societies, and innumerable

3 New York State Grand Lodge, 1898, OHM.

165

Roman Catholic organizations, while the name Orange is more to be frowned upon and despised rather than respected and held up as the synonym of liberty and progress.” Comparing the Order to other fraternal societies again, Bateman suggested that both the origin and the remedy for this ailment lie in recruitment practices.

I would say: cater to a higher class of citizenship and elevate the Order! It is not necessary that we should embrace the undesirable, simply because they be Protestant. The Odd Fellows exclude undesirable Protestants; the Templars of Liberty exclude undesirable Protestants, as do also the Masonic society; but the Orange Order welcomes almost anyone who bears the name Protestant. As proof of this, look at your list of expulsions every year for marrying Roman Catholics – [such intermarriage being] a disgrace and a blot on the Institution.

Expulsion for various reasons, including eighteen in New York for marrying Catholics since 1893, were indeed a perennial problem for the Order. Other violations of the Order’s central tenets, such as being raised by Catholic parents, were also common, but offenses that would pertain to virtually any organization, such as drunkenness, theft, and general truculence, were even more so.4

Orangemen throughout the Atlantic were perpetually concerned with the public’s perception of them, and such concerns were especially pronounced in the early 1900s. The criticisms of the press in the 1890s and the use of Orangeism as a symbol of foreign bigotry certainly contributed to their sensitivity. Although it is difficult to determine accurate numbers for membership in the US, the Order claimed 12,000 active members in 350 lodges in 1903, and many of these were likely gained without adequate vetting during the APA’s moment in the sun. At the worldwide IGOC meeting the same year, the Committee on Correspondence reported it had received a communication from the Grand Lodge of Victoria, Australia, calling its attention to an

4 Supreme Grand Lodge of New York, Report of Proceedings, 1899, OHM.

166

entry on Orangemen in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.5 The article was unflattering and gave an example of what it claimed was one of Orangemen’s favorite toasts, dedicated to William III, “‘who saved us from popery, slavery, knavery, brass money and wooden shoes,’ with grotesque or truculent additions according to the orator’s taste.” It added, “Orangemen are fond of beating drums and flaunting flags,” evoking the Order’s reputation for public disorder.6

The Correspondence Committee worried the article misrepresented the Order and misled readers, and recommended that a more impartial article that also included reference to the United

States be sent to the publishers.7 The effort was unsuccessful, as the council again dealt with the

“old libelous article” in 1912 after it was carried over into the eleventh edition. The Orangemen believed the issue was more than simple ignorance and saw it as “calculated to materially injure the Loyal Orange Association.” They resolved to again point out to the publishers the “unjust and untrue nature of the article,” and the “injury being done our Association by such universal publication,” asking that someone with better knowledge of the principles and history of the Order be tasked with writing the article. The Deputy Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge of British South

Africa had already volunteered and submitted a possible replacement. The Committee also requested that all lodges under the jurisdiction of the council unite together in the effort to have the article replaced.8

5 Loyal Orange Association of the World, Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report of the Proceedings of the Triennial Session of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of the Loyal Orange Association of the World (Glasgow, Scotland: Published at the Office of Imperial Grand Secretary, 1903). 6 “Orangemen,” In Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, edited by Hugh Chisolm. Encyclopaedia Britannica Company, 1911. 7 IGOC, Report of the Proceedings, 1903. 8 IGOC, Report of the Proceedings, 1912, D1889/6/5, Public Records Office of , Belfast, UK (Hereafter cited as PRONI).

167

At the 1900 Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA meeting, the Orangemen re-emphasized their patriotism and commitment to the Protestant cause. Outgoing Supreme Grand Master

Hardenburg encouraged every Orange Lodge to obtain a model of a “little red schoolhouse,” place it on the altar during meetings, and sing patriotic songs around it. The image had come to symbolize non-sectarian public schools and reflected the American Orange Order’s long-standing commitment to opposing parochial education.9 At the same session George T. Lemmon was named chair of the Committee on Literature and Educational work, and he re-emphasized the importance of education in the Order’s mission, arguing that it was the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics. Evoking the key theological argument against Catholicism by Protestants, he announced: “Protestants know things; Catholics believe their priests know things.” Claiming that anyone could see examples of this in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, Lemmon used this point as a segue into a laundry list of broader political issues troubling the Order. Most of the complaints stemmed from what Orangemen saw as promises President McKinley made to the

APA—and then promptly broke—during the 1896 election.10

Lemmon began with a recent letter from Hardenburg to McKinley, which he felt should be placed in the hands of “every opponent of Romanism,” especially “those thousands who were sufficiently aroused to combat Romanism as to enter the great APA organization of a few years ago.” In the letter, Hardenburg was especially vexed by the appointments of Catholics like Joseph

McKenna (Supreme Court), former Knights of Labor head Terence Powderly (US Commissioner

General of Immigration), and Bellamy Storer (US Minister to , then Spain) to prominent positions within the government. Additionally, Hardenburg wished to protest a postal stamp

9 The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1900, Box 18, shelf 2D, USA Materials, OHM. 10 Ibid.

168

bearing the image of colonizer and Jesuit missionary Father Jacques Marquette. After reading

Hardenburg’s letter aloud, which was signed “Yours for American Liberty,” Lemmon recited a letter of his own, penned at an Orange conference in Troy, New York, in June of 1899. Lamenting that “Never in all the past history of the American government has Roman Catholicism been so triumphant at Washington as today,” Lemmon reiterated many of Hardenburg’s criticisms, especially over Catholic appointments and “violated promises” to the APA.11

Orangemen had been disappointed regarding the hope expressed only a year before in the pages of the Purple Bell that the newly-acquired territories would provide a venue for patriotic

Protestant Americans like the themselves to “civilize” Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos.

Sufficient progress in that project had not been made, and Lemmon blamed the government.

“Rome is reaping a harvest,” he claimed, arguing that the party of Lincoln and Grant had once been its foe, and that McKinley was not either president’s successor. Exalting the Loyal Orange

Institution as one of the “Great Protestant Orders,” Lemmon closed his letter by calling on fellow

Orangemen to take on the role of an umbrella organization for other anti-Catholic orders and to invite Hardenburg to their towns and “prove that Orangeism, the APA, the Junior Mechanics, the

Knights of Malta and other foes of Rome are not dead yet.” The session would later be closed with a full reading of the poem, “Tie the Flags Together, Boys,” by its author, Orangeman Major Robert

Griffiths of Philadelphia.12 To prove that the Order was “not dead yet,” Orangemen would continue throughout the twentieth century to align and collaborate with other broadly anti-Catholic orders who shared similar interests and objectives.

11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

169

Anti-Catholics had long railed against Catholic influence in education, and the proponents of the new “100 per cent Americanism” in the 1910s were no different.13 The “little red schoolhouse” served as a symbol for American patriotism, which anti-Catholic nativists believed was only compatible with Protestantism. Only in a publicly-funded, non-sectarian (i.e., non-

Catholic) school could young citizens-in-training receive a thorough understanding of American liberties and institutions and how to maintain them.14 The Loyal Orange Institution of the USA supported such principles and, like other like-minded organizations, demonstrated its understanding of Protestantism as the de facto state religion, despite its own vocal insistence on the separation of church and state.

Such attitudes aligned with those of Orangemen and other ultra-Protestants in Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Since the early 1800s, Anglican schools in

England increasingly received funds from the state, and even into the 1870s, these parish schools were frequently the only option available in rural areas. State funding of these schools was opposed by Protestant Dissenters and, for them, the move toward including Catholic schools at the end of the century was a bridge too far.15 Public money in Catholic schools had long been a threat for

Orangemen in America and abroad.16 Beyond his proposal for funding a Catholic university in

Ireland in 1899,17 Arthur Balfour again rankled Protestant feathers with the Education Act of 1902,

13 Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism (Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1963), 144-150; Higham, Strangers in the Land, 29, 59, 242-246. 14 Kelly J. Baker, Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK’s Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930 (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2017), 86-88. 15 Priscilla Chadwick, “The Anglican Perspective on Church Schools,” Oxford Review of Education 27, no. 4 (2001): 475–87. 16 Examples among American Orangemen can be found in Chapters 3 and 4. 17 See Chapter 4.

170

which funded church-run schools through local taxes.18 Although the Act provided for state supervision of instruction and teacher qualifications in state-funded Catholic schools, many die- hards refused to pay a portion of their taxes, rallying under the cry, “No Rome on the Rates!”19

The goals that American Orangemen supported demonstrates that instead of the separation of church and state, members were in fact concerned with Protestant hegemony in public schools.

In 1913, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania resolved to commend the state legislature and governor on the passage of a new law that required daily reading of the Holy Bible in public schools—from the King James version, of course.20 When the same body met four years later, it restated its support and called for direct action by individuals, asking each member to act as a “committee of one” to see the law was enforced.21 By 1919, the State Grand Lodge had aligned itself with the Anti-

Sectarian Appropriation Association (ASAA), which fought to keep state funds out of religious schools. The State Grand Treasurer requested that the Order give financial aid, and both it and primary lodges contributed throughout the decade.22 At the 1927 State Grand Lodge, the body commended the Association’s work, as well as that of the National Reform Association and the

Sabbath Day Observance League, and recommended that “all lodges contribute as liberally as possible.” It likewise donated another $100 to the ASAA, whose secretary was also a state-level officer in the Orange Order.23 All five of the Independent Patriotic League of Philadelphia’s

18 Wendy Robinson, “Historiographical Reflections on the 1902 Education Act,” Oxford Review of Education 28, no. 2/3 (2002): 159–72. 19 James Arthur, The Ebbing Tide: Policy and Principles of Catholic Education (Leominster: Gracewing, 1995); John Clifford, The London Education Bill: Rome on the Rates (London: National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, 1903). 20 Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1913, Collection MSS-093, HSP; Nathan C. Schaeffer, The School Code and Other Laws Relative to the Public Schools (Harrisburg, PA: Wm. Stanley Ray, 1914), 156. 21 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1917, HSP. 22 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1919; Lily of the Valley minutes, January 9, February 27, October 23, 1925; HSP. 23 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1927, HSP.

171

officers for 1920 were leading Orangemen, and one advertisement declared its goals were to

“Guard the Purity of the Ballot and to Maintain our Public School System,” with “Equal Rights to

All, Special Privileges to None.”24 But American Orangemen did not support such measures simply in an effort to be good Americans. At the Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge meeting, the body passed a resolution not only to reaffirm its support of Bible reading in public schools, but also one to “send hearty greetings to our Brethren throughout the World and trust that our mutual efforts to maintain Civil and Religious Liberty and to frustrate and confound the whimsical armies of the Vatican will be successful.”25

Individual lodges also actively worked toward promoting Protestant privilege in public schools. Lily of the Valley Lodge donated annually to the Philadelphia Protestant Federation and purchased 200 leaflets about various upcoming local elections from the ASAA in 1924. In the same meeting the Lodge also approved its ad hoc committee’s proposed design for a new banner, which would be prominently displayed in future parades. The design included an open bible (long a Protestant symbol of receiving God’s word directly), two American flags, and a little red schoolhouse.26 For Orangemen, the Protestantism that had made them loyal and worthy subjects of the British Crown also made them loyal and worthy citizens of the United States, and the public schools represented the fount from which all Americans—native and foreign-born—should receive (Protestant) patriotic instruction.

American Orangeism Fractures

24 Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, D0462-M98-13, Box 2, HSP. 25 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1925, HSP. 26 Lily of the Valley minutes, September 26, 1924; Lily of the Valley minutes October 10, 1924.

172

Another issue often seized upon by anti-Catholic nativist crusaders was temperance. Even before the 1840s, nativists associated alcohol with immigrant immorality, especially among groups like Germans and Irish Catholics. Temperance advocates and prohibitionists blamed drinking for a host of societal problems, including feuds brought from “the Old Country” such as Irish .27 The supposed political influence of hard-drinking foreigners was a bogeyman for the American Party, or Know-Nothings, in the 1850s, and historian Tyler Anbinder argues the failure of existing political parties to pass temperance laws contributed to the Know-Nothings’ rise.28 As the push for social reform gained steam in the 1880s and carried into the Progressive

Era, activists presented a menu of solutions for society’s ills. Alcohol consumption was again one of the central targets, and Prohibitionists tied it directly to the equally important goal of assimilating migrants.29 In the two decades before Prohibition, some ethnic communities organized against Prohibitionists, and their work became harder in the 1910s with the escalation of hostilities in Europe and the Protestant-led anti-immigrant sentiment that followed.30 But unlike other causes championed by the broader anti-Catholic movement, the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA was not united on the issue of alcohol.

In 1914, the Order split into two factions represented by George T. Lemmon and William

J. Kirkland, two prominent national officers. Lemmon was a well-known clergyman from upstate

New York and was active in the temperance movement. By the time of the rupture, he had been president of the Conference Temperance Society and served as an officer in the New York State

27 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 195. 28 Tyler Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850’s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 43. 29 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 41, 268. 30 Lisa MacGirr, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2016), 42-43.

173

Grand Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars, a temperance organization active since the 1850s.31 In 1918, Lemmon represented the New York Law and Order Alliance at a convention held to depose the superintendent of the New York Anti-Saloon League for failing as yet to secure the state’s ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment.32 Lemmon’s crusading interests were not limited to alcohol, however. He was also involved in the New York Secret Law and Order League, which had been formed to counter desecration of the Sabbath, the dissemination of “lewd materials,” the illegal sale of liquor, and the trafficking of women for prostitution. As field secretary for the society, he recorded (and likely penned) a missive that reported some of the

League’s accomplishments, including fighting for the passage of the Mann Act, and requested contributions to keep fighting vice.33 In short, it is easy to imagine that Lemmon and his allies took seriously the prohibition of alcohol within an organization of which he was a prominent leader.

The divergence of views on alcohol between activists like Lemmon and some rank-and- file members provided an impetus for debates over the power structure within the American Order.

A former treasurer of Washington Loyal Orange Lodge no. 137 of Germantown, Pennsylvania, ended up a defendant against his lodge over the presence of alcohol at an Orange event. The Lodge had either sold liquor or allowed it to be sold at the July Twelfth celebration in 1913 at a park in north Philadelphia, in violation of the laws of the Supreme Grand Lodge. In response, the Supreme

Grand Lodge revoked Washington Lodge’s charter and requested the surrender of all books, seals, and property, including cash on hand. These instructions were ignored for over a year, with

31 Jack S. Blocker, David M. Fahey, and Ian R. Tyrrell, Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003), 320; Burlington Weekly Free Press, March 21, 1907; New York Templar, November 1914. 32 The Sun, May 07, 1918. 33 George H. West, Secret Law and Order League, Annual Report, 1910, USA Materials, OHM; Christian Advocate, 1911, 533; Who’s Who in New York City and State (New York: L.R. Hamersly Company, 1914), 757.

174

Washington Lodge claiming that no hearing had been given for it to state its case. Members elected new officers as usual in December of 1913, including David Buchanan as treasurer. But the following year, when Buchanan’s term expired, he refused to hand over the unspent money belonging to the lodge, totaling $222.87, on the grounds the charter had been revoked and the money belonged to the national organization. Just before his term was to expire, Buchanan had received a formal order from the Supreme Grand Master, William A. Dunlap, instructing him to hold all money and books until further notice.

Citing the Order’s own constitution, a civil court ruled the structure of the Order was such that a local lodge, such as Washington, reported directly to its district lodge, Germantown Purple

Star District no. 3, and no individual or entity had the right to summarily revoke a charter without first engaging in proceedings that gave the offenders a chance to defend themselves. The court ordered Buchanan to return the funds and property of Washington Lodge, and pointed out the he had obtained his position as treasurer of the lodge after its charter had already been revoked, and thus, acted as a member of the de facto organization. The judge argued that if Buchanan took and expended money on behalf of this de facto organization, he could not then deny the same organization the right to the unexpended money. Furthermore, regardless of the Order’s internal laws, only Washington Lodge had a right to the money because it had been collected by the members of that lodge for mutual benefit, such as paying for costs incurred when a member became sick or died.34

The Washington Lodge episode was only one piece of a larger upheaval. Dunlap had previously suspended or revoked the charters of two district and twenty subordinate lodges in

34 Pennsylvania Courts, The District Reports of Cases Decided in All the Judicial Districts of the State of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, PA: H. W. Page, 1915), 563-570.

175

Pennsylvania for their participation in questionable Twelfth celebrations.35 The suspensions were already a major topic of concern at the Supreme Grand Lodge meeting at Atlantic City in 1912.

Assistant Grand Secretary Kirkland had been accepting charters for new district lodges that were granted by state lodges, possibly to groups that had been covered by the suspensions, arguing that it was within the authority of state lodges, not the national one, to do so. Outgoing Grand Master

Robert F. Brown disagreed and revoked these charters. In his address to the body, Brown attributed the disagreement and emerging factionalism to the two problems of ignorance of the rules of the order, and of speaking on matters pertaining to the order outside of the lodge. In his report to the assembly, Kirkland insisted that his and Brown’s working relationship on the matters had been cordial and that, “I have been on the most friendly terms, and although I have heard insinuations to the contrary, I want to say to you one and all in this Supreme assembly on my honor, as a Royal

Marksman, that irregardless [sic] of all that has been said or the purposes for which it may have been said, that in the official discharge of my duty…I have known no faction, clique or individuals,” and instead treated all equally. Kirkland clearly had support within the order, as he was elected Supreme Grand Secretary for the next two years.36 But at the Pennsylvania State Grand

Lodge meeting in August of 1913, State Grand Secretary John McClintock charged Dunlap with

“violation of obligation, slander of John McClintock without cause and slander of the Loyal

Orange Institution,” arguing the Supreme Grand Master had usurped the state lodge’s rights. The body agreed, and as Dunlap was a Pennsylvania Orangeman himself, suspended him from the state lodge for ten years and demanded his resignation from the Order completely.37

35 Ibid. 36 Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1912, OHM. 37 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge minutes, 1913, HSP.

176

The issue and its attendant personal conflicts reached a crisis at the Loyal Orange

Institution of the USA’s biennial meeting in 1914. Dunlap, an ally of Lemmon, had been elected

Supreme Grand Master two years before, while William Kirkland had been elected Supreme Grand

Secretary. Two men, named Lees and McCaw, were elected treasurer and lecturer, respectively, but had both been included in the mass suspensions carried out by Dunlap in 1913. Kirkland disagreed with the suspensions, and as Supreme Grand Secretary refused to hand over the SGL’s credentials or to serve on the Standing Committee on Credentials, both of which were duties of his office. Dunlap responded by expelling Kirkland, although it is not clear he had authority to do so.

The Grand Lodge had originally planned to meet at the Cataract Hotel, but to avoid a fight, Dunlap had Lemmon pass around notices to sympathetic brethren stating the meeting would be moved to the Oddfellows Hall several blocks away, where those present re-elected Dunlap as Supreme

Grand Master. One hundred and twenty-nine members (more than the number siding with Dunlap) who supported Kirkland remained behind at the original location and elected a man named Taylor as their Supreme Grand Master.38

At the Dunlap-Lemmon meeting, Dunlap claimed that it was Kirkland who had moved the meeting by distributing a false circular to attack the integrity of the Supreme Grand Lodge. Keenly aware that his report to the body would be reproduced for Orangemen everywhere to read, Dunlap was sure to take the early opportunity to set the narrative by framing the dispute around alcohol, arguing that the Order had long been associated with “liquor traffic through social connection,” but that enforcement of the rules had cleaned up its public image.39 The “wets,” as Lemmon and

Dunlap dubbed them, denied that alcohol was the issue at hand and portrayed the matter as a

38 Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1914, OHM. 39 Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1914, OHM; New York (State) Supreme Court, Reports of Cases, 780-81; United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia Circuit), Lemmon v. Kirkland (D.C. Cir. 1915), 1915.

177

constitutional one, with Dunlap and Lemmon the perpetrators of a power-grab. The 1915

Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge determined to make this clear, adopting a resolution to “deny that it was a Wet or Dry dispute that divided our Order, but we aver that it was illegal and unconstitutional actions of William A. Dunlap and others associated with him.” The body asserted that it had worked very hard in support of a local option law, and continued to do so, and denied allegations that its members had tried to gain entry to Dunlap’s State Grand Lodge meeting.

However, the body assured any lodges or members that had been “misled” by Dunlap would still find an open door if they were to return to the fold.40 At the following biennial meeting, the state lodge fully codified their position on alcohol by adopting a resolution that “no intoxicating beverages be served at entertainments given by Lodges at after meetings or any meetings in connection with the Lodge.”41

This rift would last for almost fifteen years and played out through court cases in several states, and the two parties’ leaders were the plaintiff and defendant in multiple lawsuits. News accounts regularly referenced the disagreement over alcohol as the primary cause of division, even after Prohibition made the matter virtually a moot point. The separation was not especially geographical, although the Kirkland bloc seems to have dominated in Pennsylvania, where the

Order was the strongest, and in many cities both sides celebrated the Twelfth of July with separate parades, as they did in Philadelphia in 1915. It seems the Kirkland set had the numerical advantage from the beginning, and many of the suits between the two sides were brought to court from the

Lemmon camp, who felt the need to assert themselves as the legitimate body. The two sides squabbled over various points, including possession of Orange credentials and regalia, the right to suspend lodges, control of the Orange Home, and even the use of the words “Orange” and

40 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge minutes, 1915, HSP. 41 Ibid.

178

“Orangemen.” In the earliest cases, the courts typically ruled neither Grand Lodge was “spurious,” but that both represented factions vying for control of the same organization. The matter kept coming up through various cases and appeals, with the courts finally weighing in because war had made transatlantic travel (and appeal to the Imperial Grand Orange Council) impossible.42 In 1926, a Pennsylvania court noted a previous but unnamed wartime Maryland case that had ruled the

Kirklandites the legitimate Loyal Orange Institution of the USA. The Imperial Grand Council had offered to hear evidence from both sides and adjudicate at their triennial meeting in 1920, but

Kirkland declined, arguing this had already been settled in the court system.43 It is also possible

Kirkland feared a decision form the Council would not go his way, as Lemmon and Dunlap claimed recognition from the Grand Lodge of Ireland early on and were the only side to send representatives to the worldwide triennial meetings.44

However, leadership within the Imperial Council was anxious for the matter to be resolved.

The Order was chronically concerned with public perception, and the openly bitter rivalry was embarrassing. In his 1926 address to the IGOC, Imperial President Frederick Dane lamented the lack of progress on the issue:

The Orange Association in the US is not, to my mind, in much better shape than it was a few years ago. There are still two factions fighting for who will gain the supremacy and control. It would almost appear that the bitterness of spirit exhibited in the various controversies that have taken place, and the innumerable law-suits which have been instituted, have been hell-inspired with the object of wrecking the whole structure in that country. It is purely a question of men and not principle;

42 New York (State) Supreme Court, Reports of Cases; United States Court of Appeals, Lemmon v. Kirkland; Gilmore v. Supreme Lodge L. O. Ins., 140 A. 530, 291 Pa. 568 (1926); Evening Public Ledger, September 02, 1919, Night Extra Financial; “Dry Orangemen Win Long War,” The Evening Journal (Wilmington, Delaware) July 31, 1923; “Orangemen in Broad Street Parade,” Evening Public Ledger, Night Extra (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) July 12, 1915; Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Kelly, 134 A. 514, 287 Pa. 139 (1926). 43 Commonwealth, 287 Pa. 139. 44 IGOC, Report of the Proceedings, 1920, PRONI; Supreme Grand Lodge of the USA, Report of the Proceedings, 1914, OHM.

179

some of them altogether devoid of that quality; without an atom of consideration for the welfare of the Orange Order. I cannot classify the majority of the combatants as Orangemen - that would be giving them a title they had no right to – If they were even a shadow of what Orangemen should be they would be actuated by a spirit of brotherly love which is one of the main attributes and characteristics of the Association to which they profess to belong, instead of endeavoring by every despicable means to get the better of one another, and cut each other’s throats. The whole situation is deplorable, and I only wish some Solomon would arise who could find a satisfactory solution to the sorry mess. Personally I am at my wit’s end, and have no advice or counsel to offer. The whole affair is mean and humiliating, despicable and discreditable.45

The divide was indeed extremely bitter, especially between its primary spokesmen, and many of the insults were publicly delivered through published newsletters, such as the Kirkland-edited

Orange and Purple Courier.46 While most of the exchanges seem like salacious gossip with little value for understanding the Order, they give observers a window into what ideals Orangemen held dear. Each side employed language that called into question the other’s commitment to their shared values.

Perhaps the most serious claim an Orangeman might make against another was aiding the enemy, and both Kirkland and Lemmon employed this charge to discredit each other. In the May-

June 1921 issue of the Courier, Kirkland accused Dunlap of spreading “Sinn Fein propaganda.”

According to the article, a Philadelphia businessman’s association to which Dunlap belonged had printed a notice in its newsletter denying that Dunlap had authored a series in the Fairmount

Telegraph criticizing the British government.

Articles appearing under the caption of “Dunlap’s Column,” denouncing the English Government for its Irish policy, have attracted nation-wide attention and caused considerable bitter discussion. These articles were not written by William A. Dunlap, Nineteenth and Fairmount Avenue, who had no knowledge of them or

45 IGOC, Report of Proceedings, 1926, OHM. 46 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge minutes, 1915, HSP.

180

their authorship. Charges against Mr. Dunlap were made by a designing politician, who holds a “soft snap” in Washington, and he will be discreet for the first time in his life if he will keep his scandalous and mendacious mouth shut on this subject hereafter.47

Kirkland then outlined his evidence that the column had in fact been written by Dunlap, as he was the president of the Fairmount Business Association and had been referred to specifically by his address (the one mentioned in the notice) and occupation. Kirkland went on to cite previous issues of the Telegraph to prove it was the same author. One article carried an account of an incident during Dunlap’s two-month trip to Ireland in 1920 in which he “denounced England at an

Orange District meeting” in response to “three cockney school teachers from across the channel

[i.e. England]” for deriding America for having entered World War I. This Telegraph article, according to Kirkland, specifically referred to the Dunlap in question as “the Fairmount undertaker,” which Dunlap was, and “the president of the Fairmount Business Men’s Association.”

Even worse, the Telegraph credited the reports of Dunlap’s actions to The Cork Examiner, “a Sinn

Fein Irish publication.” What Dunlap allegedly wrote to get himself lumped in with Sinn Fein is not outlined, as it had been published in a previous edition of the Courier not found in archives.48

Kirkland likewise claimed that neither Lemmon nor his supporters were anywhere to be found when a deputation of the Ulster Unionist Council visited the United States from late 1919 to early 1920. The UUC sent the delegation of six ministers from multiple Protestant denominations and one British MP from Tyrone, William Coote, to America to counter the public outreach of Sinn Fein and drum up support for their own cause: keeping Ireland unified under one

British government.49 When the delegation arrived in Philadelphia on January 3, the Kirklandite

47 Orange and Purple Courier, May-June 1921, HSP. 48 Ibid. 49 The Ulster delegation’s visit is thoroughly covered in Lindsey Flewelling, Two Irelands Beyond the Sea: Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018), Chapter 5.

181

Orangemen and -women of the city were there to greet them, and entertained them over several days with services at local Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopal churches. The LOI covered the costs of the delegation while in Philadelphia, which included a reception held for almost 200 clergymen from the city.50 The Orangemen of New York likewise held a farewell reception for the delegation before their final departure back to Ireland in February, and Kirkland again noted the absence of Lemmon or his followers. “The Ulsterites cannot say true and tried Orangeism in the

United States turned their [sic] backs on them during their mission here, but where were the

Lemmons?” he asked. “Gallery play don’t count when activity is necessary, but true Orangeism when duty calls is always found at its post and never grows weary in well doing.”51

Lemmon was perfectly willing to use similar rhetoric against Kirkland. In a letter to

Imperial Deputy Grand Secretary James Davidson, of Dublin, Lemmon responded to Kirkland’s article by accusing him of being the Sinn Fein conspirator. He lamented that, “The persistent prevarication of the former bartender at Washington and those he serves of Philadelphia disturbs some of our people, particularly those who have come among us as a result of our steady work of construction in contrast to the enemy’s labor at destruction.” Referring to his opponents as “Jesuits in Orange,” and “The Booze Party,” Lemmon accused Kirkland of “assisting Rome,” by switching his party allegiance to the Democrats to keep his “little job” as a deputy US marshal in Washington.

In calling his opponents “The Booze Party” and Kirkland a “former bartender” in reference to alcohol at Orange functions, Lemmon was counting on igniting his own supporters’ prohibitionist passions. Further, Kirkland failed to be present when Orangemen lobbied in his own back yard against Washington officially recognizing Irish independence in August and December of 1919.52

50 Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, HSP. 51 Orange and Purple Courier, March-April 1920, HSP. 52 Letter from George Lemmon to James Davidson, May 27, 1921, OHM.

182

In another letter to Davidson in 1926, Lemmon criticized Kirkland and Gilmore’s “Knights of

Columbus” (i.e., Catholic) attorneys and their tactics as an insult to the “Orange World.”53

Kirkland responded to these charges, which Lemmon had circulated to his lodges, as “the product of a diseased brain, produced by a specimen of the lowest type of humanity,” who had

“worn his clerical robes threadbare.” Beyond insulting Lemmon’s intellect, Kirkland was sure to include other references (like that of the robes) of varying subtlety to imply Lemmon held sympathies with Irish Republicanism and Catholicism. The previous “Dunlap Fairmount

Telegraph Sinn Fein propaganda” of course appeared, and Kirkland suggested an analogy to one of Protestantism’s greatest criticisms of Catholicism when he wrote that readers, “do not require an ecclesiastical interpreter to assist them” in understanding the truth of the matter. He also accused

Lemmon of continuing to “harp” on one of the many legal disputes between the two factions, using quotations around the word to ensure readers would catch the pun and its association with Irish nationalism.54

Getting to the matter of “political mudslinging,” Kirkland declared that his own political standing spoke for itself, and that any doubtful person could inquire with the Republican Party headquarters in Washington or in Wilmington, where Kirkland lived. Kirkland argued he had maintained his position through merit alone and that it was in fact Lemmon’s politics that required examination.

As a Democrat, we find him with William Jennings Bryan…and as the Supreme Grand Master of the Loyal Orange Institution of the United States and at the same time wearing the garb of a Methodist minister, we have him knocking at the doors of Tammany Hall, the most corrupt political organization that could be found anywhere, seeking admission as a leading light and assuring them his association with the desired consideration would be just the asset the Tammany organization

53 Letter from George Lemmon to James Davidson, April 5, 1926, OHM. 54 Orange and Purple Courier, July-August 1921, HSP.

183

required, because as Supreme Grand Master of the L.O.I. of the United States, he controlled the entire society and carried its political voting power in his vest pocket.

Kirkland blamed Lemmon’s failure to secure a place on the payroll of Tammany Hall as his reason for later becoming involved with the Prohibition Party and acquiring “a fat job” in the Anti-Saloon

League.55

In the above examples, the most vocal members of the two factions called into question the opposing side’s commitment to “true Orangeism.” More important, the charges they hurled at one another give some insight into what each party saw as essential to be a “true” Orangeman, and there was quite a bit of overlap. Simultaneous support for fellow Protestants in Ireland and a rejection of Catholicism as both theology and a political force were essential. Both Lemmon and

Kirkland were acutely aware of this and used it to their advantage whenever their opponent made a misstep, whether real or imagined, to paint him as in league with the enemy. However, dedication to Protestantism was a global cause, and fighting for it in one’s own backyard equaled or superseded the struggle in Ireland. Catholicism was a transnational menace for Orangemen, and during the reception to welcome the UUC delegation to Philadelphia, State Grand Master Robert

A. Gilmore assured them, “You see arrayed before you tonight the great and glorious Orange order in our beloved city, intensely American, every member a citizen of this great Republic or having declared his intention of becoming such, as a man without a vote is like a ship without a rudder.”56

Gilmore wanted the Ulster visitors to understand that the Orangemen of America were unified

(with a voice that required attention as voters) in their calls for Washington to stay away from the

Irish question. Conversely, American Orangemen generally assumed themselves to back the

Republican Party, as they had since its inception, when it subsumed the Know-Nothings and

55 Ibid. 56 Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, HSP.

184

attracted other nativist anti-Catholic groups. Orangemen had long associated the Democratic Party, especially Tammany Hall, with corrupt political machinery powered by mobs of foreign Catholic voters and stuffed ballot boxes.57

Kirkland also frequently used the issue of race in his efforts to discredit Lemmon. The

Orange Order’s attitude toward surely varied among its individual members, and it is not clear if Lemmon and Kirkland represented a divide within the order over the issue.

But Lemmon’s use of a black attorney, Francis H. Warren, during the dispute is notable. Warren was the editor of The Detroit Informer, an African-American newspaper, as well as chairman of the Detroit chapter of the NAACP.58 At the turn of the century Warren had been president of the

Michigan Co-Operative League and was at the forefront of plans to found a colony of black

Americans in Liberia.59 In the Courier Kirkland rarely missed an opportunity to attack Lemmon based on his association with blacks. In 1921 The American Patriot newspaper, produced in

Chicago by Lemmon associate and former Supreme Grand Master Robert F. Brown, reported a

$10 donation to the Orange Home from Warren. In a short article titled “Charity Begins at Home,”

The Courier responded, “It would be very nice as well as appropriate if the learned divine in his next issue of the Chicago Breeze [The American Patriot] would let us know the generosity of his negro council to Orphanages of his own color, which are more needful and in better position to accept his generosity than those of a different race.”60 In the next issue, Kirkland made it clear where he stood on the issue:

57 Gordon, Orange Riots, passim. 58 The Northwestern Reporter (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1911), 637; Kidada E. Williams, They Left Great Marks on Me: African American Testimonies of Racial Violence from Emancipation to World War I (New York: NYU Press, 2012), 162. 59 Nina Mjagkij, Organizing Black America: An Encyclopedia of African American Associations (New York: Garland, 2001), 265. 60 Orange and Purple Courier, January-February 1920, HSP.

185

It must indeed be gratifying to true Orangeism to learn that the editor of the Lemmon, so called American patriot, has placed himself on record as to his relationship with the colored race. The gentleman who coached the Negro attorney in Chicago to assist the Lemmon coon in Detroit would make believe he has discovered the definition of a gentleman. It is as old as it is true, “Politics make strange bedfellows,” and “birds of a feather will ever be found flocking together,” but be all this as it may and with due respect to the colored race the editor of the Orange and Purple Courier takes pride in placing himself on record as saying, “The Loyal Orange Institution has always been a white man’s organization and undertakes to prophesy that it will ever remain as such, especially in the United States of America.” On the same page, in an account of Brother Henry Wilson’s birthday, the editor was sure to mention that the seventy-two-year-old Orangeman “has no use for either coons or Lemmons in connection with the fraternity.”61 A few pages later, Kirkland assured those interested in the upcoming July 12 celebrations in Pontiac, Michigan, that “there will be no Lemmons or negro lawyers among the invited guests.”62 Kirkland’s assertion of the Order being “a white man’s organization” and his references to the American Patriot imply that Lemmon and company must have published something indicating some kind of support for African Americans beyond hiring

Warren as their attorney. A few months later at the Imperial Council meeting in Belfast, five representatives from the “drys,” including Lemmon, Dunlap, Brown, and George Stewart (of

Purple Star in Clinton, Massachusetts), presented a motion “[t]hat the Supreme Grand Lodge of the United States be authorized at its discretion to institute and supervise Loyal Orange Lodges wherein the membership shall be restricted to male members of the negro race,” followed by the eventual creation of a “National Grand Lodge” which would have representation in the Supreme

Grand Lodge. Unfortunately, whether the motion was debated or acted upon by the body was not

61 Orange and Purple Courier, March-April 1920, HSP. 62 Ibid.

186

recorded in the Report of the Proceedings, as it was derailed by the question of whether the

Americans were legitimate representatives of American Orangeism.63

The ties between nativists and anti-slavery movements are well-known, and Anbinder argues that the failure of existing political parties to address the sectional crisis of the 1850s, like their failure to embrace temperance, was the primary impetus behind the rise of the Know-

Nothings. The anti-slavery Know-Nothings equated the captivity of slaves in America with both the spiritual and physical captives of the Catholic Church, which appealed to an Orangeman’s sensibilities.64 While the American Orange Order was, in general, politically aligned with the

Republican Party, little is known about Orangemen’s views of African Americans. Abraham

Lincoln was the namesake for several Orange Lodges, among other Republican presidents, and

Lemmon was himself an amateur scholar of the Great Emancipator.65 Furthermore, the Democratic

Party traditionally appealed to immigrant voters. Of course, none of this precludes Lemmon or any other Orangeman from subscribing to racial ideologies prevalent at the time. American

Orangemen’s attitudes, as a group, toward blacks is impossible to tell from the existing record, leaving us to wonder if they were divided on the issue in the same way they were as to the leadership of the Order.

“100 per cent Americanism” and the Orange Order

63 IOGC, Report of the Proceedings, 1920, 5, PRONI. 64 Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery, 43-46. 65 Ida Tarbell to George T. Lemmon, April 13, 1933, The Ida M. Tarbell Collection of Lincolniana, Allegheny College DSpace Repository, accessed September 10, 2018, https://dspace.allegheny.edu/bitstream/handle/10456/28787/16.3770.0004.pdf; George Lemmon, Lincoln in the Light of His Age: A Centenary Memorial (New York: Cochrane Publishing Co., 1909); “Abraham Lincoln,” The Central New Jersey Home News, February 12, 1941.

187

Outside of The Courier’s references to blacks made to discredit Lemmon, his efforts to create black lodges, and Kirkland’s declaration of the order as a white organization, African

Americans appear to have been of little concern to American Orangemen. However, the Order’s intense anti-Catholicism did bring it into league with other groups whose goals were broader and included the repression of people of color. Collaboration between the Ku Klux Klan and the

Orange Order in Canada has been documented by James Pitsula, and several scholars have studied the Klan’s popularity with anti-Catholic crusades in the northeastern US.66 Popular memory tends to portray the Klan within the context of white supremacy, which was certainly a goal of every incarnation of the organization. But religious historian Kelly J. Baker points out that evangelical

Protestantism and anti-Catholicism were central to the second Klan, which flourished from the mid-1910s to the early 1930s. This obsession with Catholics has been overshadowed by the racism of both the Reconstruction and Civil Rights-era Klan. However, the second Klan was founded by a clergyman, and with a membership that peaked at four million in 1924, it was the most powerful anti-Catholic organization of the 1920s.67

Both Catholic and Protestant observers understood the ideological connections between the Orange Order, the Klan, and other groups like the Know-Nothings and “A.P.A.’s”, as The

Catholic Herald showed in its 1922 history of religious persecution in the United States.68

Promoting a talk titled “Why I’m a Protestant,” at Sunnyside Methodist Church in Portland,

Oregon the same year, an advertisement in The Oregon Daily Journal exclaimed, “Orangemen

66 James M. Pitsula, Keeping Canada British: The Ku Klux Klan in 1920s Saskatchewan (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2013); Philip Jenkins, Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Mark Paul Richard, Not a Catholic Nation: The Ku Klux Klan Confronts New England in the 1920s (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2015). 67 Kelly J. Baker, Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK’s Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930 (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2017), 5, 8, 14, 18. 68 “Religious Persecution in the United States,” reprinted in The Catholic Tribune, September 16, 1922.

188

invited! A.P.A.’s invited! Ku Klux Klan invited! True Americans invited!”69 The Capital Journal, reporting on the rise of the Klan in the Pacific Northwest in 1922, surmised that new kleagles forming in Portland were mostly filled with the remnants of the APA, and were actively recruiting among Masons and native-born Orangemen, as well.70 George Lemmon believed this was the case, too, and in a letter to James Davidson in 1925 noted, “At least FOUR new Lodges in March in

Oregon. Two of them Kirkland. But not old-time, real rebel Kirklandites—Just Lodges that in a

K.K.K. fight three years ago or less went that way so as to still hold name Orange.”71

There was clear overlap in the goals of the KKK and the Orange Order in America, and

The Courier occasionally expressed support for the Klan. The November-December issue of 1922 reported, “An enthusiastic brother from the Wildly West” had sent in a card that read “America is in danger! Put 100 Per Cent Americans on Guard, Boys. George Washington K.K.K.,” with the back of the card reading, “Backing up the Little Red School. K.K.K.” The description was followed by Kirkland’s commentary: “The Loyal Orange Institution of the United States, being 100 per cent

American and 100 per cent Protestant, heartily endorses and will co-operate with any organization that in its line up or make up is 100 per cent American and 100 per cent in ‘Backing up the Little

Red School,’ for undoubtedly such an organization is 100 per cent Protestantism.”72 On the next page, The Courier responded to Baltimore Archbishop Michael Curley’s criticism of the Klan and of the recent passage of an Oregonian law which prohibited parochial and private schools. Curley was quoted as calling the American people “stupid” for allowing such an organization as the KKK, which he described as a Masonic body, to exist.73 Responding that Curley was now in the United

69 The Oregon Daily Journal, February 25, 1922. 70 The Capital Journal, October 20, 1922. 71 Letter from George T. Lemmon to James Davidson, April 8, 1925, OHM. 72 “The Three K’s,” Orange and Purple Courier, November-December 1922. 73 “Assails Klan, Masonic Order, and Divorces,” Baltimore Sun, November 13, 1922.

189

States and “no longer in the bogs of Ireland,” the author, who signed only as “[a] Scottish Rite

Mason and 100 per cent American,” argued, “The Rev. Gentleman knows nothing about the fellowship or workings of Masonry, or what goes to make up the fraternity of society of Klu Klux

Klans, both of which in the United States, are full-blooded one hundred percent American institutions.” The author further argued, “Oregon voters are to be congratulated in their latest political victory and achievements in connection with the free public school system—and if

Masonry in the United States is being aroused from its slumbers and it took the assistance of the

Ku Klux Klans to do it, more power to both.”74

Like the Orange Institution and other patriotic societies, the KKK participated in parades on holidays, and the two organizations sometimes coordinated with each other. At the 1924 LOI

State Grand Lodge of Maine meeting, the body received an invitation from West Branch Lodge of

Island Falls to join its Twelfth festivities for that year. The Grand Lodge accepted the invitation and then voted to telegraph Kirkland for permission, which was granted, to invite the Klan to join in the celebration.75 The event was a success, according to The Houlton Times, which reported

“there were the most Orangemen ever seen here in a parade […] followed by about one hundred members of the Klu Klux Klan from different towns;” adding, “as they appeared in their white robes and masks they were greeted with much enthusiasm all along the line of march.”76 The

Courier also reported the event, as well as joint Orange-Klan events in Indiana. June 21 saw “a banner event for Protestantism” in the town of Vincennes when a parade of mostly Orangewomen was joined by the KKK for a procession The Courier claimed was three miles long, “with the

74 “The Shoe Pinches and Archbishop Curley Howls,” Orange and Purple Courier, November-December 1922, HSP. 75 LOI USA, Maine State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1924, Collection D0462 1993-102, HSP. 76 Maine Memory Network, “Ku Klux Klan March, Island Falls, 1924,” Maine Historical Society, accessed September 6, 2018, https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/66676/.

190

standard of Orangeism floating side by side with the Star-Spangled Banner.” Earlier the same month, the LOI and KKK had joined forces in Sullivan, Indiana, for a memorial service and “a joint parade of United Protestantism.” The men of the KKK led, followed by the women’s Klan and then the women and men of the Orange Order.77

“The KKK at Island Falls July 12, 1924.” Maine Historical Society.

American Orangemen were also willing to give financial support to the Klan, when the need arose. On July 3, 1924, Lower Marion, Pennsylvania police were called to an empty lot where

Klansmen had lit a fiery cross to celebrate Independence Day. When officers Albert Miller and

Francis Roy arrived, they observed running shadowy figures who then fired upon the police. Both officers were struck, and Roy would later die of his wounds, but not before identifying fellow

Lower Merion officer and Klansman Latimer McCoury as one of the assailants. McCoury and two

77 Orange and Purple Courier, July-August 1924, HSP.

191

other men with links to the Klan were tried in November for Roy’s murder.78 In October, Lily of the Valley Lodge, of nearby Ardmore, created a committee to solicit other local lodges for funds

“on behalf of the families of the Clansmen [sic] who are confined to prison.”79

The lodge continued to collect money for the “good cheer fund” on behalf of the accused

Klansmen’s families into the next spring. Lily of the Valley’s dedication to this cause was so strong that it declined a request in November for donations from its brethren in Millinocket, Maine, to aid the construction of a new hall.80 When the defendants were acquitted on the order of the presiding judge, The Courier was sure to claim the Orange Order’s share of the credit and demonstrate “that the Orangemen and the K.K.K. are working in harmony.” Sensing a conspiracy against the Klansmen, The Courier pointed out that, “Naturally this was done before a Roman

Catholic magistrate” and argued that the men required “the best legal talent money could procure” to prove their innocence. “Lily of the Valley, L.O.L., No. 167, Ardmore, Pa., came to the rescue.

They stepped into the breach and took up the fight on behalf of these men, using every effort to secure their freedom and to eradicate the stain of crime that Roman Catholicism was trying to foist upon the Protestants of Ardmore.” All told, sixteen lodges, including four women’s lodges, donated a total of $291.65 to the “worthy Protestants.”81

Lemmon and his supporters also involved themselves with other broadly anti-Catholic movers and shakers throughout the 1910s and 1920s. Most notably, in 1919 Lemmon and Robert

Brown attended a convention for the revival of The Menace, an anti-Catholic paper based in

78 Joseph F. Kennedy, “’20s Murder Case Spotlighted Klan,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 18, 1999; “Bluecoat Tried in Roy Murder Was a Klansman,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 21, 1924. 79 Lily of the Valley Lodge minutes, October 24, 1924, HSP. 80 Lily of the Valley Lodge minutes, November 14, 1924; November 28, 1924; December 12, 1924; January 9, 1925; January 23, 1925; March 27, 1925, HSP. 81 Orange and Purple Courier, March-April 1925, HSP.

192

Aurora, Missouri. Wilbur F. Phelps and Theodore Walker, a Congregationalist minister, founded the paper in 1911, and by 1915 it boasted 1.5 million subscribers.82 Phelps had come out of the

Progressive movement and was previously a printer for the socialist Appeal to Reason.83 Higham notes apparent sympathies with socialism in the language of The Menace and other such publications that compared the Catholic church to a trust and saw it as an enemy to Progressive goals and labor unions.84

In the mid-1910s, Scottish-born Billy Parker became a partner in the paper. Parker was an avid promoter and fundraiser for The Menace and its message. When he came to speak in

Jacksonville in 1915, the editors of the Florida State Press wondered what the point was, when so few Catholics held any power within the state. They surmised the answer lie in a campaign coordinated between The Menace and the Guardians of Liberty, another anti-Catholic order, to line their pockets, questioning why the Guardians refused to make their membership lists public.85

Parker was also an avid supporter of the second incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, although he could not himself join because of his foreign birth.86 This did not prevent him from speaking on the Klan’s behalf, or even at its events. At a 1922 talk in Ohio, he expounded upon the merits of the Klan, while launching attacks at Catholics, Jews, and blacks.87 In 1925, both Parker and his partner from The Menace, Judge Gilbert O. Nations, gave talks and moderated sessions at the

82 John Higham, Strangers in the Land, 51, 200. 83 Nordstrom, Danger on the Doorstep, 84-85. 84 “Our Friends the Enemy,” The Catholic Advance, March 1, 1919; Patrick J. McNamara, A Catholic Cold War: Edmund A. Walsh, S.J., and the Politics of American Anticommunism (Bronx: Fordham University Press, 2005), 51; Higham, Strangers in the Land, 180. 85 “Back to Chaos,” Tampa Tribune, November 22, 1915. 86 “‘Menace,’ Foe of , Now Under New Rule,” Argus-Leader, March 10, 1931. 87 “K.K.K. Draw Small Crowd at Meeting,” The Negro Star, June 16, 1922.

193

Second National Convention of the Independent Klan of America, the Indiana-based splinter group formed by infamous Klansman D.C. Stephenson.88

In the late 1920s, Parker relocated to Jacksonville, Florida, where he published The Blue

Shirt, the “organ of a political organization sponsoring white labor.”89 Jesse O. Thomas recorded the tagline of the paper as “Chamber of Commerce of the White Working Class,” and credited it and Parker with fomenting more racial animus in Jacksonville than any other entity. Thomas cited vehemently racist attacks on blacks in the paper, as well as The Blue Shirt’s primary concern, which was shaming local business for hiring black laborers instead of whites.90 Parker was murdered in 1929 by a Jacksonville city employee and possible past-member of the Blue Shirt organization who felt he had been slandered in the pages of the publication.91 In short, those behind

The Menace shared many views and goals with Orangemen, making collaboration between the groups expected. At the same, this relationship demonstrates the American Orange Order’s connections, both ideological and personal, to the broader anti-Catholic—and even quasi-fascist— movements of the early twentieth century.

Irish matters received plenty of attention in The Menace, and its concerns echoed those of many Irish Protestants, who often appeared in its pages. In the November 1919 issue, Protestant

Ulstermen were favorably contrasted against their Catholic counterparts in an article meant to counter Irish Nationalist calls for self-determination and membership in the League of Nations:

88 “200 Delegates in Muncie for Klan Meeting,” Muncie Evening Press, June 15, 1925. 89 “Former Editor of ‘The Menace’ is Slain in Florida,” Joplin Globe, September 29, 1929. Parker’s Blue Shirts do not appear to be directly connected to or predictive of later fascist Blue Shirts, especially those of Ireland, who were Catholic. But Parker’s organization does, like the KKK, resemble fascist organizations in its racially-based nationalism. For Ireland’s Blueshirts, see Mike Cronin, “The Blueshirt Movement, 1932-5: Ireland’s Fascists?” Journal of Contemporary History 30 (1995): 311–32. 90 Charles Spurgeon Johnson and Elmer Anderson Carter, Opportunity: Journal of Negro Life (New York: National Urban League, 1969), 314-315. 91 “Former Editor of ‘The Menace’ is Slain in Florida,” Joplin Globe, September 29, 1929.

194

The Catholics in Ireland want to be independent of England. The Protestant minority of Ireland, chiefly in Ulster, does not want to be independent of England. The Catholic majority in Ireland is priest-ridden and therefore poor. Protestant Ulster is wealthy. Irish “independence” would put Ulster’s Protestant wealth under the political control of a group of politico-religionists who have the world’s record for expertness in “despoiling the Egyptians.” All this clamor for independence by Catholic Ireland is a clamor to destroy the political independence of Protestant Ireland.

In the same issue, under “Organization News,” which detailed the exploits of the IOB and WOB, the Orangemen are included in a mention of several anti-Catholic organizations like the Guardians of Liberty, the Patriotic Order of the Sons of America, the Junior Order, the Maltas, and the IOB.92

In December of 1919, The Menace reported favorably on the Ulster Delegation’s visit, as well as the Los Angeles Shriners’ decision to refuse the use of their auditorium to Irish Revolutionary leader Eamonn de Valera.93

After The Menace’s peak in 1915, subscription numbers declined precipitously, and the paper was in dire straits by 1919.94 Responding to a call to “all patriotic societies,” to attend the

“Menace Convention” in Aurora, Lemmon informed George Stewart that neither he nor Brown knew much about the previous internal problems of the paper and had not the time to read it lately due to the ongoing factionalism within the Orange Order. The Orangemen arrived to discover The

Menace suffered from its own internal disputes, mainly between two factions Lemmon referred to only as the “P’s” and “B’s.” These were likely abbreviations for other fraternal or nativist orders

(probably the Order of Pathfinders and IOB), as Lemmon felt inclined to notify the organizers he was not already a “B” but was prepared to join if needed, assuring Stewart that he and Brown could

92 What “I.O.B.” stood for remains unknown, as it was a secret organization. “Facts as to Roman Catholic Population Discount Fiction,” The Menace, November 29, 1919. 93 “Ulstermen Coming,” and “Los Angeles Frost for Papist Agitator,” The Menace, December 6, 1919. 94 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 51, 200.

195

do so “without discrediting our Orange membership—exactly as our Masonic membership does not discount our Orange membership.” Lemmon described these groups as “newer patriotic bodies…to distinguish them from old timers like the American Mechanics, Patriotic Sons of

America, and our Orange,” as well as the American Protective Association and the Guardians of

Liberty.95 What “IOB” stood for is a mystery, due to the organization’s secrecy, but The Menace explained it as “the secret arm of the Free Press Defense League,” the company responsible for the paper. It sought to provide an umbrella organization under which all patriotic orders could unite by creating a formal connection between the editors of The Menace and organizations interested in promoting “thorough-going Americanism.”96

In Lemmon’s assessment, both the “P’s” and “B’s” had evolved out of the Guardians of

Liberty, which was formed in 1911 by retired military officers and included former US Chief of

Staff Nelson A. Miles.97 The “P’s” had originated first and were led by Billy Parker and Judge

Gilbert O. Nations.98 It was around this time that Catholic leaders led a national effort to stop The

Menace from being delivered through the mail under the pretext that its descriptions of priests violating women were lewd.99 Soon after, the “B’s” emerged as an offshoot of the “P’s,” with

Nations and Parker as part of the former. Parker and Nations had maintained control of the paper and were responsible for calling the 1919 convention. No stranger to organizational infighting,

Lemmon was leery of the drama and feared being subsumed by “extra-radicals who might seek to commit the Convention to a policy the Orange would not stand for,” although he was unclear regarding what possible policies concerned him. His fears were allayed, though, and all in

95 Letter from George T. Lemmon to George Stewart, October 4, 1919, 3815/A/99, PRONI. 96 The Menace, April 5, 1919. 97 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 182. 98 George T. Lemmon to George Stewart, October 4, 1919, 3815/A/99, PRONI. 99 Nordstrom, Danger on the Doorstep, 1.

196

attendance seemed united in the goal of reviving the paper. By his own account, Lemmon was very active in the proceedings of the convention and credited himself with most of the meeting’s positive outcomes. He was elected president of a newly created National Council of Patriotic

Societies, which also included Brown, Parker, and Lemmon’s close friend and Women’s Christian

Temperance Union lecturer, Ida Van Valkenburg. The decision to include three women on the council had been a conscious one, as there were many in attendance, but the decision over whom to select became problematic because those who had been most involved in the meeting were either former nuns or the widows of former priests. The convention wished to cast as wide a net as possible with its new federation and worried the prominence of such women might hinder their cause.100

Lemmon had little time, however, to affect the direction or fortunes of The Menace, as its production facilities suffered a devastating fire in December of 1919.101 The Orangeman was shortly involved in legal wrangling over the insurance money that followed, as well as a battle to control the paper’s future. That Kirkland weaponized the conflict against Lemmon is no surprise, but the information he provides in the form of salacious gossip also gives a detailed view into the organizations and spheres of thought into which the Orange Order sought to place itself. Kirkland made clear that his view of The Menace was a positive one, and he painted Lemmon as secretly in league with Catholics and Irish nationalists bent on destroying the paper. Referring to “a Lemmon who would pose as an Orangeman,” Kirkland accused Lemmon of deceiving Theodore Walker, co-founder of The Menace and “an old gentleman with a splendid career, but who has reached the years of dotage,” in an attempt to obtain the insurance money “through the instrumentality of the

100 Lemmon to Stewart, October 4, 1919, PRONI. 101 The Library of Congress, “About The menace. (Aurora, Mo.) 1911-1920,” Chronicling America, accessed September 5, 2018, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89066178/.

197

law and Negro attorneys.”102 Lemmon claimed he had been given power of attorney for the Free

Press Defense League and, combined with his trusteeship of the National Council of the Federation of Protestant Patriotic Societies, believed this gave him a legal right to “all sums for unfilled subscriptions to the Menace, as well as contributions.”103

The matter was already in court and, according to Kirkland, preventing Parker and Nations from rebuilding The Menace. “It is whispered that his would-be holiness, the man [who], with the assistance of two Negro attorneys,” tried to overcome Kirklandites “is now endeavoring to put the fearless advocate of Protestantism in the United States, the Menace, out of business.” Kirkland presented this as particularly shameful, arguing that Parker and Nations had been at the forefront of the fight against Catholicism, referencing the Catholic Church’s previous attempt to have the paper banned from the mail. In contrast, Lemmon had no personal interest in the paper until very recently. Kirkland saw this as an effort by Lemmon to line his own pockets, and he pointed to

Lemmon’s history with their own Order, claiming he was the only Supreme Grand Master to run the Order into debt to pay for his personal expenses.104 In the next issue of the Courier, Kirkland reported that Lemmon was soliciting donations to revive The Menace under the name of The

Honest Menace, with the support of original Menace co-founder and fellow minister, Theodore

Walker, as a figurehead. The article noted Lemmon was asking for $2 each from “100,000 patriots.” Kirkland presented Lemmon’s assertion of patriotism as hypocritical, claiming Lemmon had been “telling Orangemen since 1914 that to be honest Orangemen must take instruction from foreign body [the IGOC]. Some American patriot! Eh?” This example of Kirkland using

Lemmon’s appeals to wider Orange authority against him may seem counterintuitive, but it falls

102 Orange and Purple Courier, March-April 1920, HSP. 103 Orange and Purple Courier, May-June 1920, HSP. 104 Ibid.

198

in line with a recurrent phenomenon throughout the organization’s history. Even into the 1920s, the American Orange Order felt the need to straddle the line between being a patriotic “100 percent

American” organization and a representative of an exclusive ethnic community that transcended national boundaries.105

In his effort to gain influence within the broader anti-Catholic movement, Lemmon continued to make enemies in the same way he had within the Orange Order. In the July-August issue of The Courier, Kirkland was thrilled to report that Lemmon had either misrepresented his relationship with Walker or it had soured. The Courier reprinted a scathing letter purported to have been written by Walker and published in The Torch, his successor to The Menace. The missive accused Lemmon of “attempting to secure proxies and assignments of claims from League members so as to control the whole situation,” as well as asserting control over lawsuits involving

Walker and usurping him through “doubtful methods.”

At the same time that he solicits proxies and seeks control of the Free Press Defense League of Missouri he solicits funds to found the Free Press Defense League of the United States…in order to discourage and discredit me to the extent of clearing the field for his own operation, he has written me the most abusive letter I have ever received. After all that, he asks me to join him in publishing a paper (not the Menace) and not because he really wanted me, but as an expedient which he conceives might aid him in securing support for his new League and new paper and whatever other novelties may hereafter contribute to the furtherance of his multiplying schemes. I wish my friends to distinctly understand that I repudiate all connection and association with Rev. George T. Lemmon. I CONSIDER HIM UNSAFE AND UNWORTHY OF HANDLING LEAGUE MONEY, LEAGUE PROXIES AND LEAGUE BUSINESS.106

Walker went on to say he did not mind Lemmon producing his own paper, but that he should cease acting under the pretense of an association with Walker, the Free Press Defense League, or The

105 Orange and Purple Courier, May-June 1920, HSP. 106 “Walker vs. Lemmon,” Orange and Purple Courier, July-August 1920, HSP.

199

Menace, none of which had previously involved Lemmon, even as a subscriber. The Courier added that those wishing to find out more could send ten cents to Reverend William L. Brandon, a prominent Klansman, for a pamphlet titled, How the Menace was Killed.107

The next year, Lemmon was also in hot water with the American Patriotic Alliance, which published The American Citizen in East Orange, New Jersey. The Alliance filed a $10,000 suit against Lemmon in response to an attack in his own publication, The Protestant Standard, on Dr.

D.D. Irvine, a contributor to the Citizen.108 This new paper, published by Robert F. Brown in

Chicago, sought to cash in on the Menace name and billed itself “the new voice of the old

Menace.”109 The Alliance was especially irritated that Lemmon had obtained a copy of The

American Citizen’s mailing list and sent copies of his own publication to subscribers. The Alliance was concerned Lemmon would be careless with or even publish the list because, it claimed, many of its paper’s associates were already suffering boycott. Lemmon had already offered a retraction, but it was found insufficient. As part of a network of patriotic orders, the editors of the Citizen were aware of Lemmon’s conflicts with other organizations.

Our subscribers should bear in mind that this man Lemmon was one of the factors in the disruption of The Menace, and the publishers of that paper printed a special pamphlet dealing with his intrigues in their organization. He was also one of the factors in the split of the Orange Institution.110

As the decade wore on, the attacks continued from both sides, much of it in print, for all the world to see. By 1926, Lemmon admitted privately that he was near his “breaking point,” and was pressed to find time to attend to all his battles while still serving as a minister, now in New Jersey.111 The

107 Ibid; “Preacher Resigns from Klan,” Concord Daily Tribune, October 26, 1921. 108 “Patriotic Alliance to Squeeze the Lemon,” Orange and Purple Courier, July-August 1921, HSP. 109 N.W. Ayer and Son’s American Newspaper Annual and Directory (Philadelphia: N.W. Ayer and Son, 1920), 191. 110 “Patriotic Alliance to Squeeze the Lemon,” Orange and Purple Courier, July-August 1921, HSP. 111 Lemmon to Davidson, May 18, 1926, OHM.

200

constant litigation not only occupied extraordinary amounts of time, but also money. More important for American Orangemen as a group, the vicious public fighting did not present an appealing picture to prospective new recruits. Attracting new membership was always a concern for the Order, and adding mean-spirited attacks on top of an association with distinct foreign ethnic qualities was a deterrent for anyone without a genuinely strong Orange identity.

Both factions within the Orange Order, although at personal odds, sought to place themselves within the wider context of American nativism, which presented itself as a patriotic movement. The premise that one must be Protestant to be fit for citizenship was still strong enough among white native-born Americans that it helped provided a milieu in which groups like the Ku

Klux Klan could thrive. For a brief period in the 1910s, The Menace reached millions of readers who shared this view, and American Orangemen again made efforts, through George Lemmon and

Robert F. Brown, to have a say in the discourse on the “Catholic threat” to America.

Why the two sides finally settled their differences is unclear, but in 1929 a preliminary agreement was signed in the Belfast offices of Sir Edward Archdale, a Northern Irish MP and

Orange Imperial Grand Master. In November of 1930, the two factions met again in Philadelphia to finalize reunification. The agreement included a plan to share $20,000 in debt that the

Lemmonites (who had assumed the name International Orange Association in 1926) held.112 By this time membership in the American Order was in serious decline, and it is certain this drawn- out episode did little to help recruitment, while the protracted legal battles likely accounted for the debt. Even by the early 1920s, membership in Kirkland’s Order, which outnumbered the

Lemmonites by three-to-one, could count only about half as many members as it had in 1900.113

112 “Orangemen Make Peace,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 28, 1930. 113 Lemmon v. Kirkland, 7; Michael F. Funchion, Irish American Voluntary Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983), 225.

201

When the Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge met in August of 1931, the recent reunification of the two competitors was a central topic of discussion. State Grand Master Samuel Stinson, a

Kirklandite, read a telegram from William Dunlap congratulating the body—which had once voted to expel him—on a “splendid meeting,” which he could not attend because of poor health. He hoped that members would be able to “bury the rubbish” of the past, and much of the meeting’s work was in fact dedicated to tying up loose ends left by the split. The body donated $100 to Robert

A. Gilmore, another Kirklandite, to be used in his role as President of the Orange Home. The

Orange and Purple Courier, founded to defend “true Orangeism” against Lemmon and his allies, was no longer needed, and had been suffering declining subscription rates. The Grand Lodge resolved to form a new paper, unassociated with the previous sixteen years of factionalism, under the editorship of Brother Reverend S. Gordon Tucker, of Gloucester, Massachusetts. The Special

Defense Fund, which had helped support Kirkland and his allies in legal battles, was likewise no longer needed, and remaining funds were returned to lodges that had donated. Overall, Stinson was happy at the progress made so far in reuniting the Order, despite some disagreements over the method of organizing Twelfth festivities, but there were some holdouts.114

Stinson lamented that the project of reuniting the women’s Orders had stalled. The

Kirklandite women had retained the original LOLI moniker, while the Lemmonites had followed their male allies and adopted the name of the Ladies International Orange Association (LIOA).

Both organizations were recognized as auxiliaries of the amalgamated LOI. Despite seemingly coming out on top of the struggle between the competing Orders, it was the LOLI that was reluctant to make amends. Stinson singled out Mae McClintock, Grand Mistress of the LOLI, from whom he “received some very disrespectful letters with a threat that she would create a greater split in

114 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge minutes, 1931, HSP.

202

the Institution than ever before should I adhere to my decree that both Ladies’ groups were recognized as auxiliary bodies.” McClintock made good on her words when Stinson resisted, refusing to participate in any July Twelfth celebrations that included the LIOA. Stinson was incensed and claimed McClintock’s actions were a “direct interference with our Institution, and an open attempt on the part of the Ladies involved to rule our Institution or ruin it.”

McClintock had listed a set of conditions in an ultimatum, but they were not recorded in the meeting minutes. Stinson handed over all correspondence on the matter to the appropriate committee, stating:

The Ladies of the International O[range] A[ssociation] recognize that they are an auxiliary body of our institution, have been most courteous at all times and are eager, anxious and willing to become united with the other group, but not on the terms as sated in the ultimatum issued to them by SGM Mae McClintock. We appreciate the faithfulness and helpfulness of the Ladies Auxiliary and count their friendship and assistance for the advancement and promoting of the affairs pertaining to our Institution, but it is high time to call a halt when they assume to dictate the conducting of the affairs of our Institution.115 Whether McClintock’s demands were genuinely unreasonable or not, Stinson clearly viewed them as an attempt to subvert male authority over the Institution as a whole. In his eyes, the LIOA, by recognizing it was an auxiliary of the men’s Order, and thus subject to men’s authority, had done the appropriate thing. Conversely, when McClintock used possibly the only leverage she had—the women’s importance in organizing and bringing familial respectability to Twelfth celebrations—

Stinson portrayed it as a threat to the very existence of the Order.116 Unfortunately the solution to the matter was not recorded that year, but at the next biennial meeting the LOI held its opening session jointly with both the LOLI and the LIOA. While the two women’s organizations were at

115 Ibid. 116 Ibid.

203

least able to meet together, they still had not formally amalgamated, showing that the divisions that came to a head in the 1910s still affected the Order well into the 1930s and likely beyond.117

Conclusion

After emerging from its alliance with the American Protective Association and brief rise to national prominence in the 1890s, the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA searched for ways to be a powerful force in anti-Catholic organizational circles. It continued its previous strategy of allying with like-minded outfits rooted in Progressive reforms. The push for temperance—while possibly not controversial among Orangemen—provided a justification to act on what probably amounted to long-simmering personal grudges. Because the leadership of both sides presented the rift as a fight for the soul of American Orangeism, it offers an insight into what ideals Orangemen and -women held dear. Lemmon, Kirkland, and their respective allies all agreed, for the most part, on what Orangeism meant, casting insults and accusations that were readily understood by anyone who identified with the Order. First and foremost, an Orangeman or -woman was not a Sinn Feiner, a Ribbonman, or any other Irish Republican sympathizer. This was the worst thing an Orangeman could be, and leaders of both factions explicitly cast each other as such to delegitimize their opponent as a deceitful fraud in league with the enemy. They also indirectly debated who was eligible for membership. The reception to Lemmon’s entreaties to form a black auxiliary are lost, but as later Supreme Grand Master and editor of the official organ of the Order’s dominant faction,

Kirkland had a large audience when he declared it a “white man’s organization.”

Conversely, both camps defined “true Orangeism” as an identity that occupied a nebulous space between a commitment to a diasporic community and a devotion to the United States. Each faction portrayed the other as beholden to a foreign body (the IGOC), while trumpeting its own

117 Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge minutes, 1933, HSP.

204

“100 per cent Americanism” when it suited them. Yet both were also happy to celebrate their victories in the wider Orange world’s court of opinion or tout their members’ bona fides through their connection to Orangeism in the “Old Country.” This dual mentality alone might have been enough to scare away the prospective membership necessary to become a more prominent force in American nativist culture. But public factionalism, coupled with the attendant drain on time, money, and energy, made the Order unattractive in a competitive marketplace of patriotic orders.

When the Loyal Orange Institution of America finally reunited, it was probably too late to truly matter, as the ongoing crisis of the Great Depression and the state’s response to it eroded many of the reasons men and women had to join.

205

Conclusion

“I do not want to appear too pessimistic, but the present abnormal situation demands careful thought and action.” Thus wrote John J. Johnson, the State Grand Secretary for the Loyal Orange

Institution in Maine, as he surveyed the Order’s losses in June of 1932. Meeting at the peak of unemployment during the Great Depression, the State Grand Lodge’s efforts that year were solely dedicated to keeping the Order alive in Maine. As a predominantly rural state, its lodges had been hit especially hard. Only nine had sent reports that year, out of at least seventy-three previously existing lodges. Combined, these nine recorded only seven new initiations and six reinstatements, meager consolation for the sixty-two suspensions and one death that had occurred among a state- wide membership that now totaled only 143 individuals.1 While this was a new low for Maine’s

Orange membership, it had been in decline since at least 1923, when eleven lodges reported 465 members, and suspensions for non-payment of dues was that year’s most pressing issue.2 By 1930, the same eleven lodges reported a combined membership that had dwindled to 278, amid continuing losses to death and suspension, minimal recruitment, and scandal surrounding alleged theft by a State Grand Secretary and trustee.3

The Order was faring better in its stronghold of Pennsylvania, but only relatively. When the Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge met in August of 1931 in Philadelphia, Grand Master Samuel

Stinson’s Presidential address lamented the recent and precipitous decline in the Order’s fortunes.

“No doubt the economic depression has had some effect on that part of our business,” he offered

1 Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Maine State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1932, Collection D0462, 1993-102, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (hereafter cited as HSP). 2 Maine State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1923, HSP. 3 Maine State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1930, HSP.

206

after reporting no increase in membership. The treasurer’s report confirmed this, adding that membership returns were declining across the state, especially in the west, which only accounted for 578 of the state’s total membership of 2,712. In 1930 alone, the Order suspended 276 members statewide for simple non-payment, and the total number lost through attrition exceeded that of new recruits. Stinson recommended that members step up their efforts in recruiting and make “a positive effort to organize a lodge in every town in the state, not just wait for requests to come in from localities.” At the same time, Stinson urged smaller lodges that were in close proximity to amalgamate, as a small lodge was nearly as expensive to run as a larger one. Twin City, with seventy-three members, had already merged with Ellwood City and its ninety-six members. Both lodges had relatively healthy membership numbers, but it is possible many represented in those tallies were no longer active and had yet to be purged from the rolls.4

Despite acknowledging that the Order’s woes were directly tied to the Depression and members’ subsequent inability to pay dues, Stinson also made several recommendations that would cost members. The Orange and Purple Courier had suspended publication in 1930, prompted by a sharp decline in subscriptions and the resolution of the split within the Order. It had also been “too locally and state focused” (probably a euphemism for partisan), according to

Stinson, and he suggested the Order needed a more nationally focused magazine or paper, to be simply titled Orange Magazine. The Grand Master also reported the Grand Lodge of New York’s decision to require all new members to enroll in its Death Benefit Fund. The body had deemed the measure vital “so that the fund might be retained, and that in time it would assure the necessary membership so that it would be capable of paying the full amount of $250.00 on the death of a member.” Stinson agreed this was a sound decision and “one of the best things the Order could

4 Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Pennsylvania State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1931, Collection MSS-093, HSP.

207

do,” and believed the fund could be maintained with as little as ten cents per member, “cheaper than any insurance that could be purchased.” Greater belt-tightening would be required of members, however, to clear the debt incurred in the protracted legal battles between its two factions over the previous sixteen years. So far, the debt had been reduced to $3,500, and Stinson estimated that $2 per member would easily take care of it.5 That this was no mean sum to working-class individuals who were already struggling to pay their dues (which were less than $2) seems to have been lost on Stinson, a retired builder.6

Potential Orangemen and -women had a steadily growing list of reasons not join the Orange

Order. The onset of the Great Depression and high unemployment of course limited many would- be Orange Americans’ funds, making it difficult—as Samuel Stinson, John Johnson, and many other Orangemen noticed—to pay dues. Suspension could cause embarrassment or resentment, and by the time suspended members were back on their feet, they had few tangible reasons to rejoin. Moreover, the American Orange Order had never been the best option for workers looking for mutual aid. Other fraternal orders offered more secure and uniform terms, but even those had been suffering declining market shares before the 1930s, as insurance companies discovered the profitability of health coverage and hospitals began offering their own group plans.7 From 1935 to

1939, Orangemen and -women, foreign- and native-born alike, were also eligible to receive aid from New Deal programs.8 The mutual aid aspect had generally been a sideshow, albeit an

5 Ibid. 6 “US Federal Census Collection, 1790-1940,” digital images at Ancestry.com. 7 Jason Kaufman, For the Common Good?: American Civic Life and the Golden Age of Fraternity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 8 Cybelle Fox, Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and the American Welfare State from the Progressive Era to the New Deal (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 215.

208

important one for many members, to the Order’s primary goal. As members became too financially pressed to pay into Lodge insurance schemes, many of the plans folded.9

The pool for possible new recruits also dramatically decreased in the 1930s. Migrants from

Northern Ireland (by this time a separate country from the rest of the island) and Canada had long been the Order’s primary source for membership, but migration from both countries virtually stopped at the onset of the Depression.10 Between 1930 and 1933, migration into Northern Ireland was actually double that of outmigration. As recently as 1926, sixty-seven percent of the foreign- born population of Northern Ireland was American, but two-thirds of those were British subjects by either marriage or parentage, suggesting links to return migrations.11 A series of victories by

American nativists in the 1920s, especially the passage of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 and the implementation of its quotas (although Canadians were excluded from these) had already seriously slowed overall American immigration. Because the quotas were based on the 1890 census, British migrants (including those from Northern Ireland), were favored over others, but still significantly restricted.12

The culmination of the early twentieth century’s restrictionist movement with the immigration acts of the 1920s also took much of the wind out of nativist sails. To be sure, nativism did not die in the 1920s, but it did take on a different tone. After the collapse of the second Ku

Klux Klan mid-decade, anti-Catholicism never again became the focus of nativist sentiment (and it had only been one of many for the Klan). But after all provisions of the Johnson-Reed Act were

9 Maine State Grand Lodge, Meeting minutes, 1924, HSP. 10 Bruno Ramirez, Crossing the 49th Parallel: Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900-1930 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 136; Fox, Three Worlds of Relief, 5. 11 Johanne Devlin Trew, Leaving the North: Migration and Memory, Northern Ireland, 1921-2011 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013), 40. 12 John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New York: Antheneum, 1963), 324.

209

implemented in 1927, total immigration quotas were limited to 100,000 individuals per year. Many nativists became complacent after these achievements, and those who soldiered on turned toward dismantling exemptions for Latin America. As John Higham pointed out, even the nomination of

Catholic Al Smith to the Democratic Presidential ticket in 1928, which might have seemed unimaginable at the height of the Klan’s power only five years before, inspired only a brief “flare up” of anti-Catholic sentiment.13

As the preceding chapters show, the American Orange Order enjoyed its moments in the sun only by hitching its wagon to larger nativist trends—trends that included Protestantism as an indispensable component of patriotism, whether in the United States, Britain, Ireland, or Canada, and in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Orange identity was also predicated on providing a foil for Irish-Catholic nationalism. This was the catalyst for the Order’s birth, and the rise and fall of

Orangeism throughout the diaspora was often a response to Irish nationalism. Timothy J. Meagher has suggested that after World War I, Irish-American identity took a back seat to a larger pan-

Catholic identity that included more recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, expressed through Irish participation in organizations like the Knights of Columbus, at the expense of the Irish-specific Ancient Order of Hibernians.14 If Orangemen and -women defined themselves, in part, by denying Catholic claims to Irish or American identities, it follows that this focus would be less compelling if those Catholic claims subsided.

International events also deflated Orange aspirations. The decades covered in this study are perhaps some the most momentous in all of Ireland’s history, and this inevitably affected

Orangeism abroad. Irish Nationalist efforts to achieve some level of self-governance came to

13 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 325–29. 14 Timothy J. Meagher, Inventing Irish America: Generation, Class, and Ethnic Identity in a New England City, 1880-1928 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 5, 9-13.

210

fruition in 1914 with the Home Rule Act, which provided for the creation of Ireland’s own parliament, Irish representation in British Parliament, and the end of direct British governance over

Ireland. Irish-American political power influenced the US government’s unofficial support for the

Act, and Ulster Unionists in Britain and America felt betrayed and that their loyalty to their respective nations was unappreciated.15 Home Rule was suspended at the onset of World War I, but the move toward independence was accelerated with the nationalist Easter Rising in 1916.

Although the Rising was crushed, it sowed the seeds of the Irish War of Independence, which culminated in the creation of the in 1922. Six Ulster counties remained in the

United Kingdom as Northern Ireland, and the formation of what amounted to an Irish Protestant state took much of the punch out of American Orangemen’s Unionist arguments, further relegating them to a fringe issue for Americans who might have sympathized.

Why We Need a History of the Orange Order in the United States

All of this adds to our understanding of an understudied dimension to the Irish Diaspora.

While most scholarship has focused on Irish Catholics in the Americas and beyond, the study of

Irish Protestants in the Atlantic World has quickly grown in recent decades. Several scholars have contributed to connecting these two histories in a meaningful way.16 Still, the phenomenon of

Orangeism in the United States has been largely unstudied and seen as an anomaly. A strange

15 Lindsey Flewelling, Two Irelands Beyond the Sea: Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018), 45-46, 60. 16 Donald Harman Akenson, The Irish Diaspora: A Primer (Toronto: P.D. Meany Co., 1996); Jessica Harland-Jacobs, “‘Maintaining the Connexion’: Orangeism in the British North Atlantic World, 1795– 1844,” Atlantic Studies 5, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 27–49; D. A. J. MacPherson, Women and the Orange Order: Female Activism, Diaspora and Empire in the British World, 1850-1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Donald M. MacRaild, Faith, Fraternity and Fighting: The Orange Order and Irish Migrants in Northern England, C. 1850-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005); Rankin Sherling, The Invisible Irish: Finding Protestants in the Nineteenth-Century Migrations to America (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016).

211

anomaly it most certainly is, but the fact that Orangeism thrived as much as it did in the US, from the mid-nineteenth century well into the twentieth, makes it a noteworthy case study of a uniquely

Irish tradition created in a uniquely British context and transplanted to a uniquely American one.

It also complicates the story of the Irish in the US history, where Irish Catholics are typically seen as the key players: exiles struggling to assert their position within a xenophobic society.

By zeroing in on the anti-Catholic core of the nativist movement in the mid-nineteenth century, Orangemen attempted to appear less “foreign” and more patriotic, although the scheme sometimes backfired and led observers to associate them with hypocrisy and political violence. As popular and scientific notions of race evolved, Irish Protestants again benefitted as the Anglo-

Saxon was placed atop the complex racial hierarchy above increasing numbers of migrants from

Asia and southern and eastern Europe, as well as the inhabitants of America’s emerging empire in

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Such racial attitudes influenced the nature of nativism, and although anti-Catholicism remained, it was no longer the central focus for organized nativist movements. The resurgent Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was the last national movement to feature anti-Catholicism as a key component, but this often takes a back seat in historical memory to its racially-motivated crusade against blacks, Jews, and eastern Europeans. In this context,

Orangemen and -women no longer had the distinct advantage they once did in allying with other nativists, and the leadership of the Order disagreed on the place of African Americans in society and their fraternity.

The anti-Catholicism that had allowed Orangemen and -women to present themselves as patriotic Americans was, ironically, historically rooted in Ireland. Orangeism formed as a response to Irish Catholic ethnic consciousness, in a time and place in which any perceived threat to

Protestant hegemony was a threat to individual Protestants. The idea that Catholic rights, legal

212

equality, or—even worse—domination were antithetical to liberty followed many Protestants out of Ireland. Wherever they went, Orangemen and -women found similar attitudes among the native- born inhabitants, as well as Irish Catholics upon whom they could project their fears. But they also found fellow Ulster men and women, some of whom had left the same village and sent home crucial information about prospects abroad. These connections and the receptive environment they found for their Protestant-positive mindset likely allowed, or even encouraged, migrants to maintain their Orange identity, keeping them linked with the wider Orange world. Members of the

Order could do this in several ways: through regular Lodge meetings, participation in public displays, traveling to international Orange gatherings, or simply by reading the latest copy of the organization’s official publications.

The example of the Loyal Orange Institution of the USA also complicates our understanding of the reception newcomers have historically faced in America. It is widely understood that different immigrant groups received different treatment, depending on the political and social climate at the moment of arrival. It is also no secret that virtually every group faced some sort of opposition. The backlash against the Irish was so intense that many historians questioned whether Irish immigrants were automatically granted the privileges of whiteness or had to fight for them.17 When Protestants from Ireland arrived on American shores in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they faced some of the same challenges any migrant might face in adjusting to a new home: finding employment, a place to live, and a new community and social circle, and gaining acceptance in the host society. But this last task was easier for Protestants

17 Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 2008); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (London: Verso, 1991); Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs (New York: Basic Books, 2005). For a critical assessment of whiteness historians’ lasting contributions to immigration history, see Cian McMahon, “The Pages of Whiteness: Theory, Evidence, and the American Immigration Debate,” Race & Class 56, no. 4 (April 2015): 40-55.

213

because the ire nativists directed at the Irish was, overwhelmingly, predicated on the association between the Irish “race” and Catholicism. This association was easily dispatched by Irish

Protestants, and both Catholic and Protestant Irish had centuries of experience with America’s

Anglo-inspired institutions, such as electoral politics and nominally secular education. But

Orangemen and -women possessed a particularly aggressive adherence to and willingness to defend their conceptions of those institutions. Throughout a period in which anti-immigrant sentiment reached new intensity and demanded state legitimization of nativist goals, a small but influential group of recent migrants heartily participated and, at times, even steered the course.

American Orangemen contributed to contradictory attitudes—which persist today—that allowed first- and second-generation Americans and their nativist allies to call for the curtailment of immigration to the United States.

The American context is now very different and despite accelerated state intervention into immigrants’ lives, it is newsworthy when an Irish national is detained and deported because it is assumed that only non-whites are among the nation’s undesirable “illegal immigrants.”18 The definition of who gets to belong has always shifted, but white skin has long-since become the major determinant in accessing all possible social, economic, and political benefits in America.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestants may now not give a second thought to accepting Catholics as fit to be citizens, but nativism remains. In the United States, the focus has increasingly shifted toward migrants from Latin America and, even more recently, the Middle East. Many of the arguments used against the Irish one hundred and fifty years ago—the inability to assimilate and “learn the language,” stealing jobs and driving down wages by working for sub-standard pay—are today

18 John Burnett, “Undocumented Irish Caught in Trump’s Immigration Dragnet,” NPR.org, accessed October 22, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/01/22/578930256/undocumented-irish-unexpectedly-caught- in-trumps-immigration-dragnet; “Increase in Number of Irish Immigrants Deported from US,” RTE News, January 25, 2018, https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2018/0125/935874-deportation-us-dylan-oriordan/.

214

levied at migrants from south of the US border, regardless of reality. While it is not surprising that politicians and pundits still use nativism to appeal to voters, the fact that many of these same political figures are the children or grandchildren of immigrants, or even immigrants themselves, is striking. But this practice, like everything else, has a history. Certain migrant groups in the past, including Irish Protestants and, eventually, Irish Catholics as well, were also able to secure their position as desirable immigrants, or obscure the fact that they were immigrants at all, by engaging in jingoistic and hyper-patriotic rhetoric in a very public way.

215

Bibliography

Archival Sources Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Loyal Orange Institution records [unprocessed additions], 1868-1997; Loyal Orange Institution of the United States of America. Records, 1883-1974. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA Orange Heritage Museum, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK: USA Materials Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK: Aiken McClelland Papers

Periodicals/Newspapers American Citizen (Ironwood, MI) Argus-Leader ( Falls, SD) Baltimore Sun Belfast Weekly News Brooklyn Daily Eagle Burlington (VT) Weekly Free Press Butler (PA) Citizen Capital Journal (Salem, OR) Catholic Advance (Wichita, KS) Central New Jersey Home News (New Brunswick, NJ) Chicago Tribune Christian Advocate (New York) Cincinnati Enquirer Concord (NC) Daily Tribune Daily Review Illinois (Decatur, IL) Democrat and Chronicle (Buffalo, NY) Dublin Evening Mail Dublin Evening Post Evening Journal (Wilmington, DE) Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia)

216

Fulton County News (McConnellsburg, PA) Harrisburg (PA) Daily Independent Joplin (MO) Globe Kansas City Catholic Leavenworth (KS) Times Los Angeles Herald Muncie (IN) Evening Press New Castle (PA) News New York Daily Times New York Templar New York Times North American Review (New York) Orange and Purple Courier (Washington, DC) Oregon Daily Journal (Portland, OR) Philadelphia Inquirer Pittsburgh Commercial Pittsburgh Daily Post Pittsburgh Press Purple Bell (Saugus, MA) San Francisco Call Scranton (PA) Tribune Semi-Weekly Times-Democrat (New Orleans, LA) Summit County Beacon (Cleveland, OH) Sun (New York) Tampa (FL) Tribune The Menace (Aurora, MO) The Negro Star (Wichita, KS) Times Philadelphia Ulsterman (Belfast, UK) Wilkes-Barre (PA) News

217

Printed Primary Sources American Protestant Association, Address of the Board of Managers of the American Protestant Association: With the Constitution and Organization of the Association. Philadelphia: American Protestant Association, 1843. Chisolm, Hugh, ed. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition. Cambridge: Encyclopaedia Britannica Company, 1911. Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Kelly, 134 A. 514, 287 (Pa. 1926). Division, New York (State) Supreme Court Appellate, Marcus Tullius Hun, Jerome B. Fisher, and Austin B. Griffin. Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. New York: Banks, 1917. Eliot, George. Romola. Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz, 1863. Fahs, Charles H. The Open Door: A Challenge to Missionary Advance; Addresses Delivered before the First General Missionary Convention of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Held in Cleveland, Ohio, October 21 to 24, 1902. New York; Cincinnati: Eaton & Mains; Jennings & Pye, 1903. Fleming, George Thornton. History of Pittsburgh and Environs, from Prehistoric Days to the Beginning of the American Revolution. Pittsburgh: American Historical Society, Incorporated, 1922. George Lemmon, Lincoln in the Light of His Age: A Centenary Memorial. New York: Cochrane Publishing Co., 1909. Gilmore v. Supreme Lodge L.O. Ins., 140 A. 530, 291 (Pa. 568, 1926). John Clifford, The London Education Bill: Rome on the Rates. London: National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, 1903. Johnson, Charles Spurgeon and Elmer Anderson Carter, Opportunity: Journal of Negro Life. New York: National Urban League, 1969. Lemmon v. Kirkland, 2871 (D.C. Cir. 1915). Loyal Orange Association of the World, Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report of Proceedings of the Triennial Session of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of the Loyal Orange Association of the World. Glasgow: Office of Imperial Grand Secretary, 1903. Loyal Orange Association of the World, Imperial Grand Orange Council, Report of Proceedings of the Triennial Session of the Imperial Grand Orange Council of the Loyal Orange Association of the World. Glasgow: Office of Imperial Grand Secretary, 1906. Loyal Orange institution of Ireland, Rules and Regulations ... Adopted by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. Dublin: Loyal Orange Institution, 1823. Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, Constitution and General Regulations: As Adopted by the Supreme Grand Lodge ... Feb. 1870. Jersey City: Loyal Orange Institution of the USA, 1870.

218

MacDougall, D. The American Year Book-Directory of Scottish Societies & British Associations in the United States, Canada & British Possessions. New York: Caledonian Publishing Company, 1914. Mellor, John. British War Songs. Pittsburgh: J. Mellor & Sons, 1916. N.W. Ayer and Son’s American Newspaper Annual and Directory. Philadelphia: N.W. Ayer and Son, 1920. Nason, Elias. A Gazetteer of the State of Massachusetts: with Numerous Illustrations. Boston: B.B. Russell, 1890. Pennsylvania Courts, The District Reports of Cases Decided in All the Judicial Districts of the State of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: H. W. Page, 1915. Roberts, Ellwood. Biographical Annals of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Containing Genealogical Records of Representative Families, Including Many of the Early Settlers and Biographical Sketches of Prominent Citizens. New York: T. S. Benham, 1904. Schaeffer, Nathan C. The School Code and Other Laws Relative to the Public Schools. Harrisburg, PA: Wm. Stanley Ray, 1914. The New England Business Directory and Gazetteer. Boston: Sampson & Murdock Company, 1908. Wheeler, Jacob D. Reports of Criminal Law Cases Decided at the City-Hall of the City of New York: With Notes and References. New York: Gould and Banks, 1825. Who’s Who in New York City and State. New York: L.R. Hamersly Company, 1914.

Secondary Sources Acheson, T.W. “The Irish Community in Saint John, 1815-1850.” In New Ireland Remembered: Historical Essays on the Irish in New Brunswick, edited by P.M. Toner, 27–54, Fredericton, NB: New Ireland Press, 1989. Adams, William Forbes. Ireland and Irish Emigration to the New World from 1815 to the Famine. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932. Akenson, Donald Harman. “An Agnostic View of the Historiography of the Irish-Americans.” Labour/Le Travail 14 (1984): 123-159. ———. Small Differences: Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815-1922: An International Perspective. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991. ———. The Irish Diaspora: A Primer. Toronto: P.D. Meany Co., 1996. ———. The Irish in Ontario: A Study in Rural History. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. Anbinder, Tyler. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850’s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

219

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. Appel, John J. “Immigrant Historical Societies in the United States, 1880-1950.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1960. Arnesen, Eric. “Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination.” International Labor and Working- Class History 60 (October 2001): 3–32. Arthur, James. The Ebbing Tide: Policy and Principles of Catholic Education. Leominster: Gracewing, 1995. Baker, Kelly J. Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK’s Appeal to Protestant America, 1915- 1930. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2017. Barnes, Kenneth C. Anti-Catholicism in Arkansas: How Politicians, the Press, the Klan, and Religious Leaders Imagined an Enemy, 1910–1960. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2016. Barrett, James R. The Irish Way: Becoming American in the Multiethnic City. New York: Penguin, 2014. Barrows, Robert G. “Urbanizing America,” in The Gilded Age: Essays on the Origins of Modern America, edited by Charles Calhous, 101-118. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1996. Beattie, Betsy. “‘Going Up to Lynn’: Single, Maritime-Born Women in Lynn, Massachusetts, 1879-1930.” Acadiensis 22, no. 1 (1992): 65–86. Beito, David T. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. Bennett, David H. The Party of Fear: The American Far Right from Nativism to the Militia Movement. New York: Vintage, 1995. Berthoff, Rowland. British Immigrants in Industrial America 1790-1950. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. Bielenberg, A. “Exodus: The Emigration of Southern Irish Protestants During the Irish War of Independence and the Civil War.” Past & Present 218, no. 1 (February 1, 2013): 199– 233. Billington, Ray Allen. The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1963. “Biography – Jackman, William – Volume X (1871-1880) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography.” Accessed September 19, 2018. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=5060. Blackstock, Allan, and Frank O’Gorman, eds. Loyalism and the Formation of the British World, 1775-1914. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2014.

220

Blethen, H. and Curtis W. Wood Jr., eds. From Ulster to Carolina: The Migration of the Scotch- Irish to Southwestern North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Office of Archives and History, 1998. Blewett, Mary H. Constant Turmoil: The Politics of Industrial Life in Nineteenth-Century New England. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2000. Blocker, Jack S., David M. Fahey, and Ian R. Tyrrell. Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Bothwell, Robert. Your Country, My Country: A Unified History of the United States and Canada, New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Bowen, Desmond. The Protestant crusade in Ireland, 1800-70: A Study of Protestant-Catholic Relations Between the Act of Union and Disestablishment. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1978. Brookes, Alan A. “Out-Migration from the Maritime Provinces, 1860-1900: Some Preliminary Considerations.” Acadiensis 5, no. 2 (1976): 26–55. Brown, Thomas N. Irish-American Nationalism 1870-1890. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1966. Bryan, Dominic. Orange Parades: The Politics of Ritual, Tradition and Control. London: Pluto Press, 2000. Bryce, Benjamin, Alexander Freund, eds. Entangling Migration History: Borderlands and Transnationalism in the United States and Canada. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2015. Bueltmann, Tanja. Clubbing Together: Ethnicity, Civility and Formal Sociability in the Scottish Diaspora to 1930. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014. Bueltmann, Tanja, and Donald M. MacRaild. “Globalizing St George: English Associations in the Anglo-World to the 1930s.” Journal of Global History 7, no. 01 (March 2012): 79– 105. ———. The English Diaspora in North America: Migration, Ethnicity and Association, 1730s- 1950s. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2017. Carrier, Norman, and James R. Jeffery. External Migration: A Study of the Available Statistics 1815-1960. London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1953. Chadwick, Priscilla. “The Anglican Perspective on Church Schools.” Oxford Review of Education 27, no. 4 (2001): 475–87. Charlotte Erikson. Leaving England: Essays on British Emigration in the Nineteenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. Christi McCallum. “Orangewomen Show Their Colors: Gender, Family, and Orangeism in Ulster, 1795-Present.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2011.

221

Clark, Peter. British Clubs and Societies 1580-1800: The Origins of an Associational World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Clawson, Mary Ann. “Nineteenth-Century Women’s Auxiliaries and Fraternal Orders.” Signs 12, no. 1 (1986): 40–61. Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2008. Coleman, Patrick. “In Harmony: A Comparative View of Female Orangeism, 1887-2000.” In Ireland in the World: Comparative, Transnational, and Personal Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2015. Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Collins, Peter. Nationalism & Unionism: Conflict in Ireland 1885-1921. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University Belfast, 1996. Cronin, Mike. A History of Ireland. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2001. ———. “The Blueshirt Movement, 1932-5: Ireland’s Fascists?” Journal of Contemporary History 30 (1995): 311–32. Curtis, Lewis Perry. Anglo-Saxons and Celts: A Study of Anti-Irish Prejudice in Victorian England. Bridgeport, CT: Conference on British studies at the University of Bridgeport, 1968. Devlin-Trew, Johanne. Leaving the North: Migration and Memory, Northern Ireland 1921-2011. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013. Ellard, Donna Beth. “Ella’s Bloody Eagle: Sharon Turner’s History of the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon History.” Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies 5, no. 2 (June 1, 2014): 215–34. Elliott, Bruce S. Irish Migrants in : A New Approach. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004. Emmons, David M. The Butte Irish: Class and Ethnicity in an American Mining Town, 1875- 1925. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989. Fitzgerald, Patrick, and Steve Ickringill, eds. Atlantic Crossroads: Historical Connections Between Scotland, Ulster and North America. , Northern Ireland: Colourpoint Books, 2001. Flewelling, Lindsey. Two Irelands Beyond the Sea: Ulster Unionism and America, 1880-1920. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018. Ford, Andrew Elmer. History of the Origin of the Town of Clinton, Massachusetts, 1653-1865. Clinton, MA: Press of W.J. Coulter, Courant Office, 1896.

222

Fox, Cybelle. Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and the American Welfare State from the Progressive Era to the New Deal, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017. Frink, Sandra. “Women, the Family, and the Fate of the Nation in American Anti-Catholic Narratives, 1830-1860.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 18, no. 2 (May 1, 2009): 237–64. Funchion, Michael F. Irish American Voluntary Organizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983. Gallman, J. Matthew. Receiving Erin’s Children: Philadelphia, Liverpool, and the Irish Famine Migration, 1845-1855. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000. Geffen, Elizabeth M. “Violence in Pennsylvania in the 1840’s and 1850’s.” Pennsylvania History 36, no. 4 (1969): 381-410. Gleeson, David. “Smaller Differences: ‘Scotch Irish’ and ‘Real Irish’ in the Nineteenth-Century American South.” New Hibernia Review 10, no. 2 (2006): 68–91. Goheen, Peter G. “Negotiating Access to Public Space in Mid-Nineteenth Century Toronto.” Journal of Historical Geography 20, no. 4 (October 1, 1994): 430–49. Gordon, Beverly. Bazaars and Fair Ladies: The History of the American Fundraising Fair. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998. Gordon, Michael Allen. The Orange Riots: Irish Political Violence in New York City, 1870 and 1871. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Gray, Tony. The Orange Order. London: Bodley Head, 1972. Green, E. R. R. Essays in Scotch-Irish History. Belfast: Ulster Historical Foundation, 2005. Griffin, Patrick. The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster Scots, America’s Scots Irish, and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Griffin, Susan M. Anti-Catholicism and Nineteenth-Century Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Hacsi, Timothy A. Second Home, Orphan Asylums and Poor Families in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. Harland-Jacobs, Jessica. “‘Maintaining the Connexion’: Orangeism in the British North Atlantic World, 1795–1844.” Atlantic Studies 5, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 27–49. Hasia Diner. Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Heidle, Alexandra, and Joannes Augustinus Maria Snoek. Women’s Agency and Rituals in Mixed and Female Masonic Orders. Boston: Brill, 2008.

223

Hele, Karl S. Lines Drawn Upon the Water: First Nations and the Great Lakes Borders and Borderlands, Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press 2008. Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925. New York: Antheneum, 1963. Hoeber, Francis W. “Drama in the Courtroom, Theater in the Streets: Philadelphia’s Irish Riot of 1831.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 125, no. 3 (July 2001): 191–232. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Hoganson, Kristin L. Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Holmes, A. R. “Religion, Anti-Slavery, and Identity: Irish Presbyterians, the United States, and Transatlantic , c.1820–1914.” Irish Historical Studies 39, no. 155 (May 2015): 378–98. Horsman, Reginald. “Origins of Racial Anglo-Saxonism in Great Britain before 1850.” Journal of the History of Ideas 37, no. 3 (1976): 387–410. Houston, Cecil J., and William J. Smyth. The Sash Canada Wore: A Historical Geography of the Orange Order in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980. ———. “Transferred Loyalties: Orangeism in the United States and Ontario.” American Review of Canadian Studies 14, no. 2 (August 1, 1984): 193–211. Hugh McLeod. “Protestantism and British National Identity, 1815-1945.” In Nation and Religion: Perspectives on Europe and Asia, 44–70. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 2008. Ismay, Penelope. Trust Among Strangers: Friendly Societies in Modern Britain. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Special Sorrows: The Diasporic Imagination of Irish, Polish, and Jewish Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Jeffrey, Julie Roy. The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Jenkins, Philip. Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Jeremy, David J. Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies between Britain and America, 1790-1830s. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.

224

Jess, Mervyn. The Orange Order. Dublin: The O’Brien Press, 2012. Johnson, Tyler V. Devotion to the Adopted Country: U.S. Immigrant Volunteers in the Mexican War. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2012. Jones, Maldwyn A. “Ulster Emigration, 1783-1815.” In Essays in Scotch-Irish History, 46–68. Belfast: Routledge & K. Paul, 1969. Karibo, Holly M. Sin City North: Sex, Drugs, and Citizenship in the Detroit-Windsor Borderland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015. Kaufman, Jason. For the Common Good?: American Civic Life and the Golden Age of Fraternity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Kaufmann, Eric. “The Dynamics of Orangeism in Scotland.” Social Science History 30, no. 2 (2006): 263–92. Kaufmann, Eric P. The Orange Order: A Contemporary Northern Irish History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. ———. “The Orange Order in Scotland since 1860: A Social Analysis.” In New Perspectives on the Irish in Scotland, edited by M. J. Mitchell, 159-90. Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2009. Kazal, Russell A. Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. ———. “Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and Reappraisal of a Concept in American Ethnic History.” The American Historical Review 100, no. 2 (1995): 437–71. Kealey, Gregory S. Toronto Workers Respond to Industrial Capitalism, 1867-1892. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Kennedy, Liam, and Philip Ollerenshaw. An Economic History of Ulster, 1820-1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987. Kennedy, Robert E., Jr. The Irish: Emigration, Marriage, and Fertility. Los Angeles: UC Berkeley, 1973. Kenny, Kevin. Making Sense of the Molly Maguires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ———. The American Irish: A History. London: Routledge, 2014. Kenny, Stephen. “A Prejudice That Rarely Utters Its Name: A Historiographical and Historical Reflection upon North American Anti-Catholicism.” The American Review of Canadian Studies 32, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 639–72. Kilcrease, Bethany. The Great Church Crisis and the End of English Erastianism, 1898-1906. London: Routledge, 2018. Kinzer, Donald L. An Episode in Anti-Catholicism: The American Protective Association. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964.

225

Knobel, Dale T. Paddy and the Republic: Ethnicity and Nationality in the Antebellum America. Scranton, PA: Wesleyan, 1986. Kramer, Paul A. “Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between the British and United States Empires, 1880-1910.” The Journal of American History 88, no. 4 (March 2002): 1315. Laats, Adam. “Red Schoolhouse, Burning Cross: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and Educational Reform.” History of Education Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2012): 323–50. Larkin, Janet Dorothy. Overcoming Niagara: Canals, Commerce, and Tourism in the Niagara- Great Lakes Borderland Region, 1792-1837. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2018. Lesger, Cle, Leo Lucassen, and Marlou Schrover. “Is There Life Outside the Migrant Network? German Immigrants in XIXth Century Netherlands and the Need for a More Balanced Migration Typology.” Annales de Démographie Historique, no. 2 (January 1, 2002): 29. Leyburn, James G. The Scotch-Irish: A Social History. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Liazos, Ariane, and Marshall Ganz. “Duty to the Race: African American Fraternal Orders and the Legal Defense of the Right to Organize.” Social Science History 28, no. 3 (2004): 485–534. MacGirr, Lisa. The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2016. MacPherson, D. A. J. “Migration and the Female Orange Order: Irish Protestant Identity, Diaspora and Empire in Scotland, 1909–40.” Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History 40, no. 4 (December 2012): 619–42. ———. Women and the Orange Order: Female Activism, Diaspora and Empire in the British World, 1850-1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. MacPherson, D. A. J., and D. M. MacRaild. “Sisters of the Brotherhood: Female Orangeism on Tyneside in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries.” Irish Historical Studies 137 (2006): 40-60. MacRaild, Donald M. Faith, Fraternity and Fighting: The Orange Order and Irish Migrants in Northern England, C. 1850-1920. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005. ———. “‘Principle, Party, and Protest’: The Language of Victorian Orangeism in the North of England.” In The Victorians and Race, edited by Shearer West, 128-40. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Pub. Co, 1996. ———. “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery’: Militant Protestant Preachers in the Nineteenth- Century Anglo-World.” Journal of Religious History 39, no. 2 (June 1, 2015): 224–43.

226

———. “Wherever Orange Is Worn: Orangeism and Irish Migration in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries.” The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies 28/29 (2002): 98-117. ———. “The Orange Atlantic.” In The Irish in the Atlantic World, edited by David T. Gleeson, 307–26. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2012. Magee, Gary B., and Andrew S. Thompson. Empire and Globalisation: Networks of People, Goods and Capital in the British World, c.1850–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Malcom, Allison. “Anti-Catholicism and the Rise of the Protestant Nation in North America, 1830-1871.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2011. McClelland, Aiken. William Johnston of Ballykilbeg. Lurgan, UK: Ulster Society, 1990. McConnel, James Richard Redmond. “The 1688 Landing of William of Orange at Torbay: Numerical Dates and Temporal Understanding in Early Modern England.” The Journal of Modern History 84, no. 3 (2012): 539–71. McFarland, E. W. Protestants First: Orangeism in Nineteenth Century Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. McGimpsey, Christopher D. “Internal Ethnic Friction: Orange and Green in Nineteenth‐century New York, 1868–1872.” Immigrants & Minorities 1, no. 1 (March 1, 1982): 39–59. McMahon, Cian T. The Global Dimensions of Irish Identity: Race, Nation, and the Popular Press, 1840-1880. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press Books, 2015. ———. “The Pages of Whiteness: Theory, Evidence, and the American Immigration Debate.” Race & Class 56, no. 4 (April 1, 2015): 40–55. McNamara, Patrick J. A Catholic Cold War: Edmund A. Walsh, S.J., and the Politics of American Anticommunism. New York: Fordham University Press, 2005. Messing, John. “Public Lands, Politics, and Progressives: The Oregon Land Fraud Trials, 1903- 1910.” Pacific Historical Review 35, no. 1 (1966): 35–66. Miller, Kerby A. Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ———. Ireland and Irish America: Culture, Class, and Transatlantic Migration. Dublin: Field Day Publications, 2008. Miller, Stuart Creighton. Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Mjagkij, Nina. Organizing Black America: An Encyclopedia of African American Associations. New York: Garland, 2001.

227

Moss, Kenneth. “St. Patrick’s Day Celebrations and the Formation of Irish-American Identity, 1845-1875.” Journal of Social History 29, no. 1 (1995): 125–48. Moya, Jose C. Cousins and Strangers: Spanish Immigrants in Buenos Aires, 1850-1930. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. ———. “Immigrants and Associations: A Global and Historical Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 31, no. 5 (September 2005): 833–64. Nordstrom, Justin. Danger on the Doorstep: Anti-Catholicism and American Print Culture in the Progressive Era. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. Norman, Edward Robert. Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England. London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1968. Nugent, Walter T. K. Crossings: The Great Transatlantic Migrations, 1870-1914. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. ———. The Tolerant Populists: Kansas, Populism and Nativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Parkhill, Trevor. “Philadelphia Here I Come: A Study of the Letters of Ulster Immigrants in Pennsylvania, 1750-1875.” In Ulster and North America: Transatlantic Perspectives on the Scotch-Irish, edited by H. Tyler Blethen and Curtis W. Wood Jr., 118-33. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1997. Paz, Denis G. Popular Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Victorian England. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. Peterson, Jon A. “The City Beautiful Movement: Forgotten Origins and Lost Meanings.” Journal of Urban History 2, no. 4 (1976): 415–434. Pitsula, James M. Keeping Canada British: The Ku Klux Klan in 1920s Saskatchewan. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2013. Radford, Katy. “Drum Rolls and Gender Roles in Protestant Marching Bands in Belfast.” British Journal of Ethnomusicology 10, no. 2 (2001): 37–59. Radforth, Ian. “Collective Rights, Liberal Discourse, and Public Order: The Clash over Catholic Processions in Mid-Victorian Toronto.” Canadian Historical Review 95, no. 4 (December 2014): 511–44. Ramirez, Bruno. Crossing the 49th Parallel: Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900- 1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Rich, Paul. “Female Freemasons: Gender, Democracy and Fraternalism.” Journal of American Culture 20, no. 1 (1997): 105–10. Richard, Mark Paul. Not a Catholic Nation: The Ku Klux Klan Confronts New England in the 1920s. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2015.

228

Riendeau, Roger. A Brief History of Canada. New York: Facts on File, 2008. Roberts, David A. “The Orange Order in Ireland: A Religious Institution?” The British Journal of Sociology 22, no. 3 (1971): 269–82. Robinson, Wendy. “Historiographical Reflections on the 1902 Education Act.” Oxford Review of Education 28, no. 2/3 (2002): 159–72. Roediger, David R. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. London: Verso, 2007. Rudé, George F. E. The Crowd in History: A Study of Popular Disturbances in France and England, 1730-1848. New York: Wiley, 1964. Ryan, Shannon, and Larry Small. Haulin’ Rope & Gaff: Songs and Poetry in the History of the Newfoundland Seal Fishery. St. John's, Newfoundland: Breakwater Books, 1978. See, Scott W. “Nineteenth-Century Collective Violence: Toward a North American Context.” Labour / Le Travail 39 (1997): 13-38. ———. Riots in New Brunswick: Orange Nativism and Social Violence in the 1840’s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. ———. “The Orange Order and Social Violence in Mid-Nineteenth Century Saint John.” Acadiensis 13, no. 1 (1983): 68-92. Senior, Hereward. Orangeism in Ireland and Britain, 1795-1836. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1966. ———. Orangeism: The Canadian Phase. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Limited, 1972. Sherling, Rankin. The Invisible Irish: Finding Protestants in the Nineteenth-Century Migrations to America. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016. Skocpol, Theda. “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy.” Social Science History 21, no. 4 (1997): 455–79. Skocpol, Theda, Ariane Liazos, Marshall Ganz, Ira Katznelson, and Martin Ganz. What a Mighty Power We Can Be: African American Fraternal Groups and the Struggle for Racial Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006. Skocpol, Theda, and Jennifer Lynn Oser. “Organization Despite Adversity: The Origins and Development of African American Fraternal Associations.” Social Science History 28, no. 3 (ed 2004): 367–437. Smithey, Lee A., and Michael P. Young. “Parading Protest: Orange Parades in Northern Ireland and Temperance Parades...” Social Movement Studies 9, no. 4 (2010): 393–410. Smyth, William J. Toronto, the Belfast of Canada: The Orange Order and the Shaping of Municipal Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. Spain, Daphne. How Women Saved the City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

229

Thernstrom, Stephan. The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880-1970. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Thomas Guglielmo. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Thornton, Patricia A. “The Problem of Out-Migration from Atlantic Canada, 1871-1921: A New Look.” Acadiensis 15, no. 1 (October 10, 1985): 3-34. Tilly, Charles. “Transplanted Networks.” In Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, 75–95. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Trotter, Joe W. “African American Fraternal Associations in American History: An Introduction.” Social Science History 28, no. 3 (2004): 355–66. “Turner, Sharon (1768–1847), Historian | Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.” Accessed September 20, 2018. Tyrrell, Ian. Woman’s World/Woman’s Empire: The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in International Perspective, 1880-1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press Books, 2014. Van Vugt, William E. Britain to America: Mid-Nineteenth-Century Immigrants to the United States. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Verhoeven, T. Transatlantic Anti-Catholicism: France and the United States in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Warrian, Peter., and Gregory S. Kealey. Essays in Canadian Working Class History. Canadian Social History Series. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976. Watt, James T. “Anti‐Catholic Nativism in Canada: The Protestant Protective Association.” Canadian Historical Review 48, no. 1 (2008): 45-58. Werner, Yvonne Maria, Jonas Harvard, and Ebooks Corporation, eds. European Anti- Catholicism in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective. European Studies - An Interdisciplinary Series in European Culture, History and Politics 31. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2013. Widdis, Randy William. With Scarcely a Ripple: Anglo-Canadian Migration into the United States and Western Canada, 1880-1920. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1998. Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order, 1877-1920. New York: Hill & Wang, 1965. Williams, Kidada E. They Left Great Marks on Me: African American Testimonies of Racial Violence from Emancipation to World War I. New York: NYU Press, 2012. Wilson, David A. Irish Nationalism in Canada. Montreal: McGill- University Press, 2009.

230

———. The Orange Order in Canada. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007. Winder, Gordon M. “Trouble in the North End: The Geography of Social Violence in Saint John, 1840-1860.” Acadiensis 29, no. 2 (March 3, 2000): 27-57. Wolffe, John. “A Transatlantic Perspective: Protestantism and National Identities in Mid- Nineteenth Century Britain and the United States,” in Protestantism and National Identity: Britain and Ireland, c.1650-c.1850, edited by Tony Claydon and Ian McBride, 291-309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ———. “North Atlantic Anti-Catholicism in the Nineteenth Century: A Comparative Overview.” European Studies: A Journal of European Culture, History and Politics 31, no. 1 (September 1, 2013): 25–41. ———. The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain, 1829-1860. New York: Clarendon Press, 1991. Wynn, Graeme. “New England’s Outpost in the Nineteenth Century.” In The Northeastern Borderlands: Four Centuries of Interaction, edited by Stephen Hornsby, Victor Konrad, and James Herlan, 64-90. Orono and Fredericton: Canadian-American Center, University of Maine and Acadiensis Press, 1989.

231